A F F O R D A B L E H O U S I N G N E E D S A S S E S S M E N T

Tofino, BC

A COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CONCERNS

June 2015

AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Tofino, BC June 2015

The Consultant responsible for the Housing Needs Assessment is:

Janis Gauthier JG Consulting Services Ltd. 2161 Fulford-Ganges Road Salt Spring Island, BC V8K 1Z7 Phone 250-653-0041 Fax 866-878-4916 (toll free) E-mail janisgauthier@shaw.ca

With the assistance of:

Judi Stevenson Minerva Research & Communications 631 Mount Belcher Road Salt Spring Island, BC V8K 2J3 Phone 250-537-5567 E-mail minerva@saltspring.com

This document represents not only the findings and views of the Consultants, but the views of many members of the community in Tofino as well as District of Tofino staff who volunteered their time to describe housing needs in the area and to make many excellent suggestions on how to address those needs. Special thanks go to the Chamber of Commerce, members of Tofino Council, Staff and the Housing Management Committee who volunteered their time to help get a high response rate on the surveys in order to fully capture community perspectives.

Page 1 of 64

AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Tofino, BC

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 BACKGROUND 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 1.3 METHODS 1.4 AFFORDABILITY MEASURES 1.5 ACRONYMS

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 2.1 KEY FINDINGS 2.2 HOUSING PRIORITIES

3. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH 7

4. DEMOGRAPHICS 9 4.1 DEMOGRAPHICS DATA AND HOUSING NEED 4.2 DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW OF TOFINO 10

4.2.1 Historical Population Growth 4.2.2 Population Forecasts 4.2.3 Population and Gender 4.2.4 Demographics and Age 4.2.5 Median Age 4.2.6 Employer Reported Employee Age Distribution 4.2.7 Employer Reported Age Distribution 4.2.8 Seniors Population 4.2.9 Household Size and Composition 4.2.10 Employee Family status 4.2.11 Mobility 4.2.12 Employee Populations

4.3 HOUSEHOLD INCOME 20 4.3.1 Statistics Canada 4.3.2 Income from 2015 Employee Survey 4.3.3 Income from 2015 Employer Survey 4.3.4 Family Income

Page 2 of 64

5. HOUSING SUPPLY and TRENDS 23 5.1 THE HOUSING CONTINUUM 5.2 EXISTING HOUSING STOCK 23

5.2.1 Housing by Structure Type 5.2.2 Changes in Housing Stock 5.2.3 Condition and Age of Housing Stock

5.3 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS 26 5.3.1 Permanent and Temporary Residency 5.3.2 Household Tenure – Rental and Ownership 5.3.3 Household Sizes

5.4 HOMEOWNER OPTIONS AVAILABLE IN TOFINO 28 5.4.1 Current Home Purchase Options: MLS 5.4.2 Historical Sales Value

5.5 RENTAL OPTIONS AVAILABLE IN TOFINO 30 5.5.1 CBT Rental Housing Survey 5.5.2 Non-market Rental Housing 5.5.3 Employee Accommodation Available 5.5.4 Impact of Vacation Rentals

6. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY 34 6.1 IDEAL HOUSING STOCK TO MEET HOUSEHOLDS’ AFFORDABILITY NEEDS

6.1.1 Determining What is Affordable 6.1.2 Ideal Affordable Housing Supply According to Residents’ Income

6.2 AFFORDABILITY OF RENTAL SUPPLY 36 6.2.1 Clayoquot Biosphere Trust - Rental Survey 6.2.2 Employee Survey – Rental Rates 6.2.3 Employee Survey – Rental Affordability 6.2.4 2014 Regional Survey – Rental Rates

6.3 AFFORDABILITY OF HOMEOWNER SUPPLY 39 6.3.1 Employee Survey – Homeowner Affordability

6.4 SENIORS NEEDS 40 6.5 VULNERABLE POPULATIONS 41

6.5.1 Shelter Allowance Rates 6.5.2 Core Need and Risk of Homelessness 6.5.3 Homelessness

Page 3 of 64

7. COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES ON NEED 45 7.1 KEY INFORMANTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON NEED

7.1.1 Perspectives on Tofino’s Affordable Housing Problem 7.1.2 Priority of Needs 7.1.3 Leadership Responsibility 7.1.4 Ideas from Past Affordable Housing Initiatives 7.1.5 Priorities for Council

7.2 SOCIAL SERVICE PROVIDERS’ PERSPECTIVES ON NEED 47 7.2.1 Affordable Housing for Vulnerable Residents 7.2.2 Priority of Needs

7.3 EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVES ON NEED, PRIORITIES AND SOLUTIONS 48 7.3.1 Employers and their Employees 7.3.2 Employees Commuting to Tofino 7.3.3 Employers’ Perceptions of Employees’ Housing Problems 7.3.4 Employers’ Plans and Perspectives on Solutions

7.4 EMPLOYEE PERSPECTIVES ON NEED AND PRIORITIES 51 7.4.1 Employees in Tofino 7.4.2 Employees’ Housing Situations 7.4.3 Employees’ Housing Concerns 7.4.4 Employees’ Plans and Housing Preferences 7.4.5 Employees’ Perspectives on Tofino’s Overall Housing Situation

8. GAPS ALONG THE HOUSING CONTINUUM 56 8.1 WHAT IS A HOUSING GAP ANALYSIS?

8.1.1 How can the Community Use a Gap Analysis? 8.2 GAPS ALONG THE CONTINUUM 57

8.2.1 EMERGENCY, TRANSITIONAL SUPPORTIVE & ASSISTED HOUSING 8.2.2 INDEPENDENT SOCIAL HOUSING 8.2.3 RENT ASSISTANCE IN NON-MARKET OR MARKET HOUSING 8.2.4 PRIVATE MARKET RENTALS 8.2.5 HOMEOWNERSHIP 8.2.6 NON-RESIDENT (SEASONAL EMPLOYEE) ACCOMMODATION

9. NEXT STEPS 64 9.1 HOW TO USE THIS REPORT 9.2 ACTION PLANNING: DEVELOP AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGY

10. LIST OF TABLES

11. APPENDICES

Page 4 of 64

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND Tofino is a small, attractive community of just under 2,000 people, located on a long, narrow peninsula on the west coast of Vancouver Island. It is surrounded on three sides by the Pacific Ocean, and bounded on the fourth side by the world famous Pacific Rim National Park Reserve. Its spectacular setting has proven to be a magnet for tourists, which has led to a thriving tourism-based economy. Tofino’s special setting has also severely limited the amount of land on which building of any kind can take place, and contributed to its high cost.

These are some of the factors that make the availability of affordable housing such an acute and long-standing community problem. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that, although Tofino attracts visitors all year round, their numbers increase greatly in the summer months, leading to the need by local businesses for an influx of short-term seasonal employees just when accommodation space is at a premium. For all these reasons, there is not a good match between housing need and housing supply in Tofino—not for permanent residents or for the non-resident seasonal workforce, and not at any time of the year. The issue is a long-standing one for Tofino, leading to a commitment in the Official Community Plan of 2002 to work on solutions. That commitment was the springboard for an active period of research and planning that lasted until about 2010. That body of work was reviewed as part of this study is discussed in terms of the contribution it can make to the planning and action on affordable housing in Tofino.

Page 1 of 64

The District of Tofino has done a significant amount of work over the years with respect to principles and policies that encourage affordable housing. A full listing of all housing policies and references in Tofino’s OCP is included in Appendix 1. This Affordable Housing Needs Assessment (June 2015) was produced in response to a Request for Proposals issued by the District of Tofino in the fall of 2014. The consultants were asked for a study that would give them accurate, up to date information on current housing conditions in the community, using existing District documents, census data, surveys and other sources as needed, as a baseline for moving forward on their affordable housing concerns. The objective of this report is to meet the information needs of the District and to contribute to action planning and housing solutions for the people of Tofino.

1.2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY A Housing Needs Assessment is undertaken to establish a community’s current and emerging housing needs, to identify gaps in the current and planned supply, and to assist a community in identifying housing priorities. By itself, it is neither an action plan nor a housing strategy, but it can be used as a basis for action planning, as a tool for further community engagement on specific aspects of the overall issue, and as a resource for project proposals and funding applications. In addition to looking at Tofino’s needs along the standard housing continuum (see p. 23) for permanent residents, this study includes needs related to accommodation for the temporary, seasonal employees who are required by many of Tofino’s businesses in the summer months.

1.3 METHODS The study was designed to be done in three stages:

1. Preliminary data gathering and assessment, 2. Community consultation and new data collection, and 3. Data analysis.

The purpose of using this approach was to begin by gaining an understanding of the community context by reviewing relevant existing information about the problems of affordable housing. This review helped to identify the additional research that would be required, and to design a community consultation process to contribute to the analysis. This staged approach also permitted an effective and targeted use of study resources, an opportunity to identify and build on work already in place, and the chance to create links with stakeholders in the community. The THMC stressed the need for quantitative data, which is provided. Qualitative data is also provided, which the consultants consider to be an essential component of understanding a complex social issue or set of facts. Affordable housing issues cannot be fully understood

Page 2 of 64

without asking the people who are affected to describe the impacts on themselves, if directly affected, or on their employees, if that is whose experience affects them indirectly. Quantitative data was obtained from a variety of sources including Statistics Canada, BC Stats, 2014 Regional Survey, Tofino Official Community Plan, CBT rental survey, Multiple Listing Service (MLS), Vancouver Island Real Estate Board, the Homelessness Outreach Enhancement Project report, the Age Friendly Tofino report, and the surveys undertaken as part of this study. Qualitative data was obtained from interviews with many members of the community knowledgeable about housing, District of Tofino staff, Tofino Housing Management Committee members, and the hundreds of Tofino residents and seasonal employees who took time to answer our surveys undertaken as part of this study. Stage 1 – Work in Stage 1 included background and preparation work to inform the direction and details of further research:

• a review of existing background documents and previous affordable housing initiatives; • a preliminary review of quantitative demographics and housing supply; • interviews with key informants informed the direction of the research; and • a preliminary assessment of the housing situation in Tofino.

Stage 2 – The research team conducted:

• telephone and face to face interviews with key stakeholders and influencers; • a review of the Clayoquot Biosphere Trust Regional Survey results • surveys of employers, employees, social service providers, and housing providers; • site visits to existing and potential housing projects; and • presentations to Tofino Council and the Tofino Housing Management Committee.

Stage 3 – The research team consolidated and correlated all data then led, leading to:

• an analysis of demographic profiles and affordability needs of the community; • an analysis of housing supply and gaps; • an analysis of survey results and community perceptions; and • identification of priorities for action.

Page 3 of 64

1.4 AFFORDABILITY MEASURES Measuring housing affordability involves comparing total shelter costs with a household’s ability to meet them, given their income. Shelter costs are considered to include basic utilities for renters, and for homeowners, this generally also includes taxes and insurance in addition to mortgage payments. Typically affordable shelter costs target 30% of a household’s income. For affordability calculations, housing is generally characterized as ‘acceptable’ if it is in good condition and is an adequate size for the family size and composition. While this is a somewhat subjective measure, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) defines acceptable housing as having three key features:

• Adequate condition (not needing major repairs), • Suitable size (given the size and composition of the household members), and • Affordable (shelter costs less than 30% of before-tax household income).

Three other measures of housing affordability that are often used include:

• Core Need – those paying > 30% of income on shelter costs. • At Risk of Homelessness – those paying > 50% of their income on shelter costs. • Homeless – a continuum ranging from ‘relative’ (insecure, unsafe or inadequate) to

‘absolute’ homelessness (also known as ‘living rough’). For the purposes of this study, affordable rents are considered to be the lesser of 30% of income, or rent levels that allow residents to have sufficient resources to properly meet their families’ other basic needs such as food, clothing, child care and transportation. Homeowner payment affordability is based on current conventional mortgage financing criteria.

1.5 ACRONYMS ACRD – Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District CBT – Clayoquot Biosphere Trust CFDC – Community Futures Development Corporation CHMC – Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation HNA – Housing Needs Assessment MLS – Multiple Listing Service NHS – National Household Survey OCP – Official Community Plan SPARC-BC – The Social Planning and Research Council of BC STVRs (or VRs) – short term vacation rentals (or vacation rentals) THMC – Tofino Housing Management Committee THC – Tofino Housing Corporation VIRB – Vancouver Island Real Estate Board

Page 4 of 64

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Key findings and affordable housing issues experienced by the community will likely come as little surprise to many who live and work in Tofino; they may in fact seem like ‘stating the obvious’ to some. This study, however, is intended as an objective presentation of housing need not only for Tofino community members and decision makers, but also for other parties that may participate in solutions. In addition to assisting the District of Tofino and its Housing Management Committee make recommendations about priorities and decisions about affordable housing proposals, a clear documentation of the affordability issues and gaps in the existing supply should help facilitate participation of funders, housing developers and other stakeholders in creating solutions. 2.1 KEY FINDINGS A lot of good work has been done over on the years to study and document affordability problems and proposed solutions. In particular, concept plans for the District’s Lot 114 and the creation of a dedicated entity to oversee implementation of housing solutions are viewed to be appropriate and effective approaches, and still relevant today. Strong leadership and dedicated resources will be required to both develop a strategy and action plan, and implement solutions. There has been very rapid population growth in Tofino, and the increase in housing supply has not kept pace. This has resulted in an escalation of prices beyond the means of many residents, as well as supply shortages particularly in the lower price ranges. There is a poor match between the existing housing supply, and the financial means of many, if not most, of Tofino’s residents. Rental housing is not truly affordable to a large segment of the population, and insecure tenure due to required seasonal moves is a significant issue, especially for those with lower income and/or with children. Vulnerable populations, such as lower income seniors who need support or those with health or other social issues are particularly affected. Homeowner housing is far out of reach for much of the population, especially first-time buyers. Tofino has a very young population with small households, including many lower income single-person households, making the mismatch between incomes and home prices particularly acute. The large influx of both tourists and seasonal workers exacerbate housing problems in the summer months as much of the available housing is turned over to the vacation rental market. While some employers provide accommodation for their staff, there is an acute shortage of affordable and appropriate accommodation for seasonal non-resident workers.

Page 5 of 64

2.2 HOUSING PRIORITIES

Gaps in appropriate and affordable housing were identified all along the housing continuum, with the exception of higher priced homes, affordable for those earning above average incomes. Some shortages are more acute and create serious hardship, such as insecure tenure or unhealthy living situations, especially for lower income individuals and families or those already in vulnerable situations. In addition, personal preferences often cannot be met, such as the desire to move from a rental situation to homeownership, thus negatively impacting an individual’s or family’s ability or willingness to commit to long-term residency in Tofino. All things being equal, one might be able to select three top needs as priorities for dedication of resources and for planning actions. However, it is not that simple. For example, some urgent needs require both funding and program support from government and other agencies that may or may not readily be available. Another example is the strong need for more rental housing targeted to low income individual and families; this too likely requires some degree of government support as financial returns are not sufficient to attract private investment. The point being drawn, is not that it is impractical to deliver housing for the greatest needs, but rather that all serious needs identified should be considered priorities. Those selected for action first must also take into consideration funding or opportunities that arise that make their implementation practical and feasible. For example, some of the more difficult to deliver priorities would be made ‘less difficult’ by beginning with the commitment of existing District land resources, supplemented where possible with the current (albeit limited) BC Housing grant funding program that targets lower income residents. The research points to the following priority actions to be considered:

1. Supported housing for vulnerable populations; numbers are not high, but need is critical. Some rental rates should be $375/month or less.

2. Permanent, year-round rental housing uninterrupted seasonally, most critically for low income residents, but also modest income residents especially those with children. Most rents should be $625/month or less for singles and $1,000/month for family units.

3. Entry-level homeownership units, affordable to first time buyers and moderate income households. Most prices should be $300,000-$400,000, with some smaller units in the mid-upper $200,000s.

4. Shared rental accommodation for seasonal non-resident employees. Most rents should be $450/person/month for shared accommodation.

Further details are located in the Gap Analysis beginning on p. 54.

Page 6 of 64

3. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH

For review and orientation to the issues, the District of Tofino staff provided a file of key studies and reports which were undertaken in the 2002 to 2010 period, some before and some after the Tofino Housing Corporation (see below) was established. A significant amount of good research and affordable housing project planning work was done in this period, with considerable community engagement and input going into the decision-making. The reports are dated in their details, but many of the major themes appear as fully relevant today, and arguably more pressing. The consultants have summarized ten key reports from this period in Appendix 2, and recommend their review and use by the District in helping to define future steps.

The community consensus during that time was clearly that affordable housing constituted an issue of significance to the community at large, and to local employers in particular. In the earliest studies, affordable staff or employee housing was taken as the major housing need. Over time it became clear that the community was equally concerned—if not more concerned—about the supply of affordable rental housing for permanent residents, with security of tenure as a prominent concern. By 2005, it had been decided that a specialized agency, the Tofino Housing Corporation (THC), was needed to take charge of the planning and decision-making that would be required to develop, launch and implement a long term strategy for construction of a significant number of affordable accommodation units. These would be for rent and for sale, and be designed and targeted to meet the needs of both permanent residents and seasonal employees. By 2005 as well, District decision-makers, drawing on the recommendations of the studies they had commissioned, had turned their attention to District Lot 114 as the location with the most advantages for the development of a new neighbourhood with housing of mixed size, price, type and tenure. Both the Strategy document of May 2004 and the Conceptual Development Plan of July 2005 included concept drawings for such a neighbourhood, with up to 192 units, to be developed over time as funding permitted. A Concept Development Plan was commissioned by the Tofino Housing Corporation and undertaken by housing consultant Robert Brown in 2008, including a preliminary financial feasibility analysis. Brown concluded that a two-phase development plan for 73 units was feasible under the economic conditions pertaining at that time. In November of 2010, consultant Roberta Martell was asked to provide recommendations for “moving forward” with the community’s stalled affordable housing plans. She analysed the steps taken previously, and concluded that under the prevailing economic conditions of 2010

Page 7 of 64

and given a sharp contraction in government funding opportunities, a major affordable housing development was not feasible for Tofino in the short term. Further, she stressed that the community had been asking for “concrete action” since the beginning of the decade, and suggested three short term deliverables as follows:

1. A four-plex of affordable rental units to be built on District Lot 114, which by this time had been successfully rezoned for multi-family housing.

2. A pilot project to partner with a specialist builder to purchase one or two “micro-homes” and locate them on District Lot 114.

3. District of Tofino policies and regulations to be amended in order to support the addition of laneway housing in appropriate locations and with appropriate restrictions on use (e.g., not for vacation rentals).

Page 8 of 64

4. DEMOGRAPHICS

4.1 DEMOGRAPHICS AND HOUSING NEED Understanding a community’s housing needs is highly dependent on a thorough understanding of the demographic profile of the population and its households. Most notably, age, household size, composition and income impact the type/form, size and affordable price ranges of needed housing. Statistics Canada census data has traditionally been heavily relied upon for current data on these key factors in addition to providing valuable information about overcrowding, housing condition, and a population’s current affordability challenges. In 2011, Statistics Canada introduced the National Household Survey (NHS) to replace the mandatory long-form census. This eliminated the availability of much housing related information and produced inconsistencies in reporting and level of detail. Statistics Canada reports a caution for some data on the 2011 NHS for Tofino, stating on its website that the “Global non-response rate (GNR) was equal to or greater than 50%”. They further add that some data for Tofino has been suppressed for data quality or confidentiality reasons, referring to the Census Profile which has more limited data than traditionally publicly reported. This created a significant impact on the ability to analyse population, households and affordability, and makes trend analysis less reliable. Efforts to fill this data gap were introduced in the ACRD through the 2014 Regional Survey; this data has been relied upon for this housing study. In addition, demographic data was obtained in the surveys conducted by the consultants. These surveys did not achieve the same response rate as the mandatory census, and even though they did have good response rates, their self-selecting nature means that respondents profile doesn’t necessarily match that of the overall population. This report identifies, where applicable, differences between these sources of demographic data that may affect housing need.

Page 9 of 64

4.2 DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW OF TOFINO

4.2.1 Historical Population Growth Statistics Canada reports very strong growth rate in Tofino between 1996-2011, significantly higher than in the ACRD (where the population experienced a slight decline) (-2%), the Province of BC (8%) or Canada (16%). Table 1: Comparable Population Growth

Year Tofino ACRD BC Canada 1996 1,170 31,652 3,724,500 28,846,761 2011 1,875 31,055 4,028,085 33,476,688 change 705 -597 303,585 4,629,927 change % 60% -2% 8% 16%

Table 2: Tofino Population Growth

Year Population Increase % incr. 1996 Census 1,170 2001 Census 1,466 296 25% 2006 Census 1,655 189 13% 2011 Census 1,875 220 13% 2013 estimate 2,049 174 9% 1996-2013 change 879 75%

Should the 2011-2013 growth estimates hold and continue through to the next census in 2016, it would represent growth that approaches the levels between 1996 and 2001.

4.2.2 Population Forecasts Pending the next census, regional population estimates from BC Stats indicate a 2-year growth (2011-2013) of 174 residents (9%). This suggests growth of 75% over the last 17 years, increasing Tofino’s population to an estimated 2,049 by 2013. Stats BC advised that they were unable to undertake a population forecast for Tofino. Instead, they suggested we utilize the Local Health Authority (LHA) data and extrapolate using Tofino’s current population estimate. Tofino is located in LHA 70 (Alberni) which goes as far north as Hesquiat, east to Port Alberni, and south to Bamfield. This methodology would produce an 8.1% population increase by 2031 in the Alberni LHA; applied to Tofino, this would produce a forecasted population of 2,214.

Page 10 of 64

This does not seem reasonable due to significant historical differences in population growth between the LHA and Tofino, with no reason to think this may change in the foreseeable future. BC Stats reports an estimated population of 30,863 in LHA 70 in 2013, a decrease of 1,977 (6%) since 1996. Given this very significantly different history of population growth than that of Tofino, any resulting forecast using this methodology is viewed to be unreliable. A likely better projection of population growth is the estimate from the District of Tofino’s OCP, which provides a range of potential growth rate projections as indicated below. However, District staff has advised that they recognize that even these forecasts will likely need to be revised upwards as the population has grown faster than expected when the OCP was updated in 2013. Table 3: Tofino Official Community Plan Population Projections

Population Projection Low (1.5%) Med (2.5%) High (3.5%)

2021 2,177 2,401 2,646 2031 2,527 3,074 3,661

Unless new housing supply keeps pace, such strong population growth will naturally strain the community’s already-tight housing supply and put added upward pressure on prices, negatively impacting affordability for residents. In Tofino, the seasonal nature of the tourist economy exacerbates this supply problem due to the housing needs of both seasonal workers and visitors.

4.2.3 Population and Gender In 2011 Statistics Canada reported a slightly higher proportion of males than females. Table 4: Gender Proportions

Employers report a slight majority of females in both the year round and seasonal categories. Table 5: Employee Gender – Employer Survey

Employee Gender Year Round Residents

Seasonal (non-residents)

Total

Male 453 48.2% 282 45.3% 735 47.0% Female 487 51.8% 341 54.7% 828 53.0% TOTAL 940 100.0% 623 100.0% 1,563 100.0%

Tofino Population Male % Male Female % Female Census 2006 1,655 835 50.5% 815 49.2% Census 2011 1,875 960 51.2% 915 48.8% Regional Survey 2014 303 106 35.6% 192 64.4% Employee Survey 2015 354 118 33.3% 236 66.7%

Page 11 of 64

Table 6: Employee Gender – Employee Survey

Employee Gender Year Round Residents

Seasonal (non-residents) Total

Male 94 34.8% 24 28.6% 118 33.3% Female 176 65.2% 60 71.4% 236 66.7% TOTAL 270 100.0% 84 100.0% 354 100.0%

The gender breakdown from both the 2014 Regional and the 2015 Employee surveys indicates a strong overrepresentation of female respondents. This should be kept in mind when evaluating housing affordability challenges reported in the surveys, as there is a significant difference in incomes between male and female employees; median income for females responding to the survey was 22% lower than male respondents.

4.2.4 Demographics and Age Many factors influence a community’s age profile, including availability, affordability and suitability of housing for their needs. The age profile of Tofino’s population as reported by Statistics Canada 2011 Census Profile is summarized below. Table 7: Age Profile

Census 2011 Tofino % total ACRD % total BC % total 0 to 4 years 110 5.9% 1,640 5.3% 219,665 5.5% 5 to 9 years 80 4.3% 1,545 5.0% 218,915 5.4% 10 to 14 years 50 2.7% 1,675 5.4% 238,780 5.9% 15 to 19 years 75 4.0% 1,965 6.3% 275,165 6.8% 20 to 24 years 170 9.1% 1,570 5.1% 279,825 6.9% 25 to 34 years 520 27.7% 3,455 11.1% 564,765 14.0% 35 to 44 years 295 15.7% 3,630 11.7% 594,635 14.8% 45 to 54 years 200 10.7% 4,895 15.8% 705,210 17.5% 55 to 64 years 240 12.8% 5,110 16.5% 614,375 15.3% Over 65 135 7.2% 5,570 17.9% 316,750 7.9% Totals 1,875 100.0% 31,055 100.0% 4,028,085 100.0% Median Age 33.7 45.1 41.9

Page 12 of 64

4.2.5 Median Age Most notable is a very low median age (33.7)1, compared to the ACRD (45.1), the Province of BC (41.9), and Canada (40.6). This is predominantly driven by a lower seniors’ population and a very strong young adult population. In spite of the lower median age, the proportions of children and youth in Tofino (ages 0-14) are lower than those of the ACRD or the province, with the exception of very young children aged 0-4. Table 8: Median Age by Gender (2011 Census)

Median Age Tofino ACRD BC Canada Male 34.5 44.9 41.1 39.6 Female 32.5 45.3 42.7 41.5 Total 33.7 45.1 41.9 40.6

Table 9: Percentage of Children (2011 Census)

Children in Tofino Tofino ACRD BC Total population 1,875 31,055 4,028,085 Total children (0-14) 240 4,860 677,360 Children (0-14) % population 12.8% 15.6% 16.8% Very young children (0-4) 110 1,640 219,665 Very young (0-4) % population 5.9% 5.3% 5.5%

4.2.6 Employer Reported Employee Age Distribution Over 50% of the year round workers reported to be in the 20-29 category, and almost 75% of seasonal workers in that age group. It is notable how few are in the 50 or older category. Table 10: Employee Age Distribution (Employer Survey)

Employee Age Year Round Residents

Seasonal (non-residents) Total

Under 20 44 4.9% 74 12.6% 118 7.90% 20-29 468 51.7% 439 74.8% 907 60.75% 30-39 217 24.0% 55 9.4% 272 18.22% 40-49 104 11.5% 11 1.9% 115 7.70% 50 or older 73 8.1% 8 1.4% 81 5.43% TOTAL 906 100.0% 587 100.0% 1,493 100.00%

1 Median age is the age that divides a population into two equal groups - that is, half are younger than this age and half are older. It is a single index that summarizes the age distribution of a population.

Page 13 of 64

4.2.7 Employee Reported Age Distribution Around 47% of all employees are aged under 30, with a significantly higher percentage among non-residents (71%). This is a young population, but consistent with Census in 2011 reported median age in Tofino (33.7 years). Table 11: Age Distribution (Employee Survey)

Employee Age Year Round Residents

Seasonal (non-residents) Total

19 or younger 0 0.0% 4 4.6% 4 1.1% 20-29 111 40.1% 58 66.7% 169 46.4% 30-39 124 44.8% 20 23.0% 144 39.6% 40-49 22 7.9% 3 3.4% 25 6.9% 50-59 15 5.4% 1 1.1% 16 4.4% 60 or older 5 1.8% 1 1.1% 6 1.6% TOTAL 277 100.0% 87 100.0% 364 100.0% Average 32.8 28.0 31.7

4.2.8 Seniors Population The seniors population in Tofino is presented separately to assist in identifying their potentially unique needs and to gain insight into any potential housing-related issues that may contribute to their lower than average proportion in the population. As noted previously, relative to the overall population, Tofino has significantly fewer seniors aged 65+ (7.2%) than the ACRD (17.9%). With the 65+ age group, Tofino has a significantly higher proportion (51.9%) of younger seniors aged 65-69 than the ACRD (33.8%) or the Province (30.6%). Table 12: Seniors Population (Tofino, ACRD, BC)

Seniors’ 65+ Ages Tofino % total ACRD % total BC % total 65 to 69 years 70 51.9% 1,880 33.8% 210,900 30.6% 70 to 74 years 25 18.5% 1,350 24.2% 160,710 23.3% 75 to 79 years 15 11.1% 1,020 18.3% 127,480 18.5% 80 to 84 years 10 7.4% 715 12.8% 96,945 14.1% 85 + 15 11.1% 605 10.9% 92,670 13.5% Totals 135 100.0% 5,570 100.0% 688,705 100.0%

The gender balance within Tofino’s seniors’ population differs from that of the ACRD and BC also, with a notably higher proportion of males in Tofino (53.6% male, 46.4% female).

Page 14 of 64

Table 13: Seniors’ Gender Proportions

Seniors 65+ gender Tofino Tofino % ACRD ACRD % BC BC % Male 75 53.6% 2,745 49.4% 316,750 46.0% Female 65 46.4% 2,815 50.6% 371,955 54.0% Total 65+ (total differs) 140 100.0% 5,560 100.0% 688,705 100.0% Total population 1,875 31,055 4,028,085 65+ % total population 7.5% 17.9% 17.1%

4.2.9 Household Size and Composition Household size is a strong indicator for evaluating housing need. Tofino has a smaller average household size (2011 Census profile) than the ACRD or Province of BC, which suggests the potential need and acceptability for smaller sized dwellings. This is shown in comparison to the 2014 Regional Survey responses. The reader will note a significant difference in household size between the 2011 Census profile and the respondents from the 2014 survey. This may be due to the (reported) unreliability of the 2011 Census data, combined with the self-selecting nature of the 2014 Regional Survey results. The consultants did not attempt to reconcile these differences, as this would require more research and a more robust analysis which is outside the scope of this report. It does pose a challenge, however, for making firm assumptions about needed housing sizes, which are directly correlated to household size. For this study, reliance is placed on the 2011 Census data due to its relative comparability to the more reliable 2006 Census. This is viewed to be adequate for early planning purposes, however, the District should be aware of this potential flaw in household size assumptions, when evaluating proposals and household acceptance of proposed sizes. Table 14: Household Size and Composition

Household size 2011 Census Tofino ACRD BC Regional Survey

2014 1 person 250 33% 4,115 31% 498,925 29% 21 8% 2 persons 250 33% 5,185 40% 613,270 36% 101 38% 3 persons 145 19% 1,860 14% 264,135 15% 62 23% 4 persons 85 11% 1,390 11% 237,725 14% 48 18% 5+ persons 25 3% 525 4% 91,600 5% 32 12% TOTAL 755 100% 13,075 100% 1,705,655 100% 264 100% Average/ household 2.2 2.3 2.5 3.1

Page 15 of 64

4.2.10 Employee Family status – Employer Survey Employers report that the majority of employees are single with no children (65%), higher among seasonal workers (80%) year round employee (58%). Employees report that the largest percentages of both resident and non-resident employees were single with no children (58.4% and 80.3 % respectively). Table 15: Employee Family Status (Employer Reported)

Family Status Year Round Residents

Seasonal (non-residents) Total

Single, no children 525 58.4% 323 80.3% 848 65.2% Single, with children 36 4.0% 7 1.7% 43 3.3% Couples, no children 174 19.4% 49 12.2% 223 17.1% Couples, with children 164 18.2% 23 5.7% 187 14.4% TOTAL 899 100.0% 402 100.0% 1,301 100.0%

Table 16: Employee Family Status (Employee Reported)

Family Status Year Round Residents

Seasonal (non-residents) Total

Single, no children 126 46.7% 49 56.3% 175 49.0% Single, with children 12 4.4% 1 1.1% 13 3.6% Couples, no children 87 32.2% 33 37.9% 120 33.6% Couples, with children 45 16.7% 4 4.6% 49 13.7% TOTAL 270 100.0% 87 100.0% 357 100.0%

4.2.11 Mobility Stats Can did not report on mobility in 2011, however, in 2006 it reported that 22% of Tofino residents had moved within the last year (compared to 16% in ACRD and 17% in BC). The 2014 Regional Survey asked about resident mobility, providing insight into how many residents move frequently and why. This indicates over 57% of the respondents have moved at least once, while over 27% have moved two or more times in the last year. Table 17: Population Mobility (2014 Regional Survey)

Moved during last year % population Once 30.7% Twice 12.1% Three + times 15.0% TOTAL MOVED 57.8% TOTAL MOVED 2+ TIMES 27.1%

Page 16 of 64

Of respondents who have moved within the last five years, 50.7% indicated that the primary reason was housing related. While we cannot determine specifically what aspect of their housing precipitated such moves, it may reasonably be assumed that affordability and/or seasonal availability would play a role in frequent moves. In the 2015 employee survey, employees reported that between 20% and 25% were working in Tofino but commuting because they could not find housing.

4.2.12 Employee Populations There is no full count of the number of employees who come to work in Tofino seasonally but normally live elsewhere. The employer surveys provided a sampling as summarized below. These 71 employers who responded in 2015 represent over 20% of the 300+ Chamber of Commerce members. However, since some of the largest employers were included in the 71 responses, we are fairly certain that the number of 892 seasonal (non-resident) employees represents a significant portion of the seasonal employees arriving in Tofino and looking for accommodation. Even though this is only a partial sample, this does demonstrate that there is a significant influx during the summer months, explaining the reported high pressure for housing. Table 18: Employee Populations

Employer Survey 2002 2003 2015 # businesses n/a 385 300+ # responses 15 83 21.6% 71 ~23.3%

# Year-Round Employees 206 606 54.0% 1,014 53.2% # Seasonal Employees n/a 516 46.0% 892 46.8% Total # Employees n/a 1,122 100.0% 1,906 100.0%

Page 17 of 64

4.3 HOUSEHOLD INCOME The reliability of income data from the 2011 NHS was particularly affected with the loss of the Statistics Canada long form census; the agency itself advises that one should “use caution” due to the change in methodology. Accordingly, for the purposes of this study, population income is presented from various other sources, including the 2006 census, the 2014 Regional Survey, and the 2015 employee and employer surveys.

4.3.1 Statistics Canada Statistics Canada reports 2006 median household income in Tofino at $43,842, slightly (3.8%) lower than the ACRD ($45,571), and substantially (16.8%) lower than the Province of BC ($52,709). The average income in Tofino is significantly higher (34.5%) at $58,958 than median income, due to a strong number of very high income earners. It is notable that the single largest income category (16.7%) of resident households earns $100,000+. Table 19: Household Income

Private households TOFINO ACRD BC ALL 690 100.0% 12,870 100.0% 1,643,150 100.0% Under $10,000 70 10.1% 755 5.9% 93,125 5.7% $10,000 to $19,999 80 11.6% 1,555 12.1% 171,695 10.4% $20,000 to $29,999 80 11.6% 1,685 13.1% 172,030 10.5% $30,000 to $39,999 65 9.4% 1,645 12.8% 178,740 10.9% $40,000 to $49,999 90 13.0% 1,350 10.5% 163,710 10.0% $50,000 to $59,999 60 8.7% 1,190 9.2% 144,630 8.8% $60,000 to $69,999 55 8.0% 1,040 8.1% 130,715 8.0% $70,000 to $79,999 20 2.9% 925 7.2% 112,035 6.8% $80,000 to $89,999 25 3.6% 660 5.1% 93,030 5.7% $90,000 to $99,999 25 3.6% 545 4.2% 76,750 4.7% $100,000 and over 115 16.7% 1,525 11.8% 306,675 18.7% Private households TOFINO ACRD BC Median income $ $43,842 $45,571 $52,709 Average income $ $58,958 $54,458 $67,675 Prevalence low income 15.0% 14.1% 17.3%

Questions about income ranges in the Regional Survey differed from census groupings, making a direct comparison difficult. However, a range of $31,000 to $45,000 suggests an underrepresentation of higher income residents in the survey respondents.

Page 18 of 64

As identified earlier, single person households in Tofino represents 33% of population. Median one-person household income from the 2006 census is $18,741, very significantly lower than overall household median ($25,101 or 57.3% lower). Income for this segment of the population is presented separately because of the important affordability implications, and the potential need for smaller housing sizes to meet their needs. Table 20: One-Person Household Income

One-Person Households Tofino ACRD BC

205 100.0% 3,675 100.0% 460,580 100.0%

Under $10,000 55 26.8% 530 14.4% 54,255 11.8% $10,000 to $19,999 50 24.4% 1,030 28.0% 115,835 25.1% $20,000 to $29,999 10 4.9% 665 18.1% 74,635 16.2% $30,000 to $39,999 35 17.1% 585 15.9% 66,300 14.4% $40,000 to $49,999 0 0.0% 335 9.1% 48,940 10.6% $50,000 to $59,999 30 14.6% 200 5.4% 33,490 7.3% $60,000 to $69,999 0 0.0% 115 3.1% 25,585 5.6% $70,000 to $79,999 0 0.0% 90 2.4% 14,560 3.2% $80,000 to $89,999 0 0.0% 40 1.1% 8,355 1.8% $90,000 to $99,999 0 0.0% 20 0.5% 5,065 1.1% $100,000 and over 10 4.9% 55 1.5% 13,545 2.9% Median income $ $18,741 $23,977 $27,773 Average income $ $29,159 $29,171 $35,513 Prevalence low income n/a n/a 13.3%

4.3.2 Income from 2015 Employee Survey Employees reported monthly incomes as summarized below. While many of these would represent seasonal incomes, they were nevertheless extrapolated to the equivalent annual income for comparison to other income measures. The income difference between genders was notable, resulting in a difference of ability to afford rental rates in the range of $100-$150 (average-median) per month. This reinforces the importance of a range of housing costs to best serve the entire population. Table 21: Median Employee Income (Employee Reported)

Employee income All Male Female M-F diff $ diff % Median (monthly) $1,853 2,250 1,750 500 22% Average (monthly) $2,416 2,638 2,316 322 12% Median (annual) $22,236 $27,000 $21,000 6,000 22% Average (annual) $28,992 $31,656 $27,792 3,864 12%

Page 19 of 64

4.3.3 Income from 2015 Employer Survey Employers reported different wage profiles between year-round and seasonal employees as summarized below. By using the mid-point in each of these income categories, the equivalent median annual income of resident employees is estimated at $27,000, and $21,000 for seasonal employees. Table 22: Monthly Employee Income (Employer Reported)

Monthly Employee Income Year Round Seasonal Total

Up to $1,500 103 12.1% 48 8.5% 151 10.6% $1,500-$2,000 229 26.8% 153 27.0% 382 26.9% $2,000-$2,500 209 24.5% 296 52.2% 505 35.5% $2,500-$3,000 137 16.0% 38 6.7% 175 12.3% $3,000-$3,500 74 8.7% 17 3.0% 91 6.4% More than $3,500 102 11.9% 15 2.6% 117 8.2% TOTAL 854 100.0% 567 100.0% 1,421 100.0%

4.3.4 Family Income ‘Family’ income is less relevant as a measure for housing affordability than ‘household’ income, as families are defined by Statistics Canada as married couples (with or without children), common-law couples (with or without children) or a lone parent families. Accordingly this measure would not include non-related persons living in a household or single persons living alone. Tofino’s median family income in the 2006 census was reported to be $50,353, which is $6,543 (14.9%) higher than median household income.

Page 20 of 64

5. HOUSING SUPPLY and TRENDS

5.1 THE HOUSING CONTINUUM Housing supply in any community consists of a range of types and prices, ideally with a variety of features and/or services suitable for households of all income levels. This range of housing is typically referred to as a ‘Housing Continuum’, and includes both non-market housing and market housing. These are usually defined by the level of government assistance involved. In British Columbia, BC Housing has developed a standard Housing Continuum that extends from emergency shelter and housing for the homeless through to affordable rental housing and homeownership as illustrated below. This can and should vary in any given community, depending on the socio-economic profile and specific needs of the population. Figure 1: The Housing Continuum

The District of Tofino has not adopted or defined a housing continuum to reflect their particular needs which do differ from many communities due to the strong need for housing for seasonal non-resident employees. The reader will note that the distinction between non-market and market housing has been drawn so that each captures private market rentals with rent assistance; this is intended to accommodate rentals which may be provided by or subsidized by employers for their seasonal employees.

5.2 EXISTING HOUSING STOCK CMHC does not undertake housing surveys in Tofino, due to its relatively small size. In addition, given the challenges with current Stat Canada census data, the consultants have relied upon a number of additional sources of data in efforts to quantify and characterize the existing supply of housing in Tofino. While not all sources provided consistent results, the information in total should provide a good overview suitable for the purposes of this study. The following reports are for dwellings occupied by ‘usual’ (permanent) residents and do not include dwellings that are second or vacation homes occupied by temporary residents.

Emergency Shelter & Housing for the

Homeless

Transitional Supportive & Assisted

Living

Independent Social

Housing

Rent Assistance

in the Private Market

Private Market Rentals

Home Ownership

Non-Market

Market

High Government financial assistance None

Page 21 of 64

5.2.1 Housing by Structure Type The housing supply in Tofino is dominated by single detached dwellings (53.6%), slightly more than in the Province of BC (47.7%), but much lower than the ACRD (73.7%). Notable differences are fewer apartment buildings in Tofino (and none that exceed 5 storeys), but more semi-detached and duplex units (total 65+80=145 or 19%) compared to the ACRD (6.3%) or the Province of BC (13.4%). Table 23: Housing by Structure Type

Structure Type Census 2011 Tofino ACRD BC Single-detached house 410 53.6% 9865 73.7% 842,120 47.7% Apartment, building 5+storeys 0 0.0% 110 0.8% 143,970 8.2% Movable dwelling 25 3.3% 540 4.0% 46,960 2.7% Semi-detached house 65 8.5% 425 3.2% 52,825 3.0% Row house 50 6.5% 510 3.8% 130,365 7.4% Apartment, duplex 80 10.5% 415 3.1% 184,355 10.4% Apartment, building <5 storeys 120 15.7% 1495 11.2% 361,150 20.5% Other single-attached house 5 0.7% 35 0.3% 2,885 0.2% Total private dwellings 765 100.0% 13,390 100.0% 1,764,640 100.0%

5.2.2 Changes in Housing Stock Over the 10-year period 2001-2011, Statistics Canada reported an increase of 175 dwelling units (30%) in Tofino. Notable changes to the housing stock include a relative decline in single-detached houses relative to other types, indicating a wider diversity of housing forms built in recent years. Table 24: Changes in Housing Stock 2001-2011

Structure Type Census 2001 2011 10-yr change Single-detached house 365 63% 410 54% 45 12% Apartment, building 5+storeys 0 0% 0 0% 0 n/a Movable dwelling 10 2% 25 3% 15 150% Semi-detached house 30 5% 65 9% 35 117% Row house 35 6% 50 7% 15 43% Apartment, duplex 60 10% 80 11% 20 33% Apartment, building <5 storeys 70 12% 120 16% 50 71% Other single-attached house 10 2% 5 1% -5 -50% Total private dwellings 580 100% 755 100% 175 30%

Page 22 of 64

As indicated earlier, Tofino has experienced very strong population growth since 2001. Growth between 1996 and 2013 is estimated at 75% (or 50% between 2001-2011, for comparison to changes in housing stock below). This represents an increase of 879 residents between 1996-2013 (or 583 residents between 2001-2011). Using an average household size of 2.3 residents per dwelling (2.4 in 2001 and 2.2 in 2011), keeping pace with Tofino’s population increase of 583 would have required an addition of 253 dwelling units. While this may be a crude estimate of dwellings required, it does highlight the difference between what was built (175 units) vs. roughly what would be required to keep pace with population growth. Table 25: Dwellings Needed for Population Growth 2001-2011

Dwellings needed to keep pace with population Population increase 2001-2011 583 residents Average household size 2.3 persons Additional dwellings required 253 Additional dwellings constructed 175 Potential shortfall 78

5.2.3 Condition and Age of Housing Stock Traditionally, census data reported on the condition of the housing stock, based on resident reports of levels of repairs required (major repairs vs. only maintenance or minor repairs). However, Statistics Canada reports that this data for Tofino from the 2011 HNS was suppressed for data quality or confidentiality reasons. In efforts to document the general condition of the housing stock, 2006 census data is presented in comparison to ACRD and BC, followed by condition as reported in the 2014 Regional Survey, the 2015 employee survey, and impressions reported in interviews conducted as part of this study. Table 26: Dwelling Condition (Census 2006)

Dwellings Requiring: Tofino ACRD BC Major repair 6.5% 12.1% 7.4% Maintenance or minor repair 93.5% 87.9% 92.6% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

It is noted that the condition of the Tofino housing stock vis-a-vis requiring major repairs is reported to be similar to that of the overall Province of BC, but in significantly better condition that of the ARCD.

Page 23 of 64

Input from both interviews and surveys agree that housing condition is not a major problem for the community as a whole, but that there are some houses and cabins in very poor condition that people are forced to accept because little else is available or affordable. The 2014 Regional Survey produced similar results, with respondents reporting lower levels of homes requiring major repair (4.3% vs. 2006 Census 6.5%). The Regional Survey further reports adequate housing at 91% (59.1% adequate + 31.9% adequate but requiring minor repair). Table 27: Dwelling Condition (2015 Regional Survey)

Dwelling Condition Tofino Adequate 59.1% Adequate requiring minor repair 31.9% Inadequate requiring major repair 4.3% Under construction, other 4.3% Total 100.0%

5.3 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS

5.3.1 Permanent and Temporary Residency Statistics Canada reports that in 2011 there were 1,033 private dwellings in Tofino, an increase of 312 dwellings (9.8%) since the 2001 census reported 721 dwellings. This total number of dwellings includes 765 dwellings in 2011 that were occupied by “usual” residents, meaning permanent residents of Tofino. As the reader will note, there has been a marked decline in the percentage of dwellings that are occupied by ‘usual’ residents over the 10-year period from 2001-2011 (81.1% to 74.1%) of total dwellings, and of course a corresponding increase in those occupied by temporary residents from 18.9% to 25.9% of all dwellings. This is consistent with reports of increasing numbers of dwellings being put into the vacation rental market in Tofino. This percentage of dwellings occupied by permanent residents in Tofino in 2011 (74.1%) is significantly lower than either the ACRD (87.5%) or BC average (90.7%), suggesting a strong component of temporary residency.

Page 24 of 64

Table 28: Dwelling Occupation by Usual (Permanent)/Temporary Residents 2001-2011

‘Usual’ and Temporary Residents 2001 2006 2011 # change % change

Tofino total dwellings 721 941 1033 312 43.3% Occupied by usual residents 585 680 765 180 30.8% Occupied by temporary residents 136 261 268 132 97.1% % usual residents 81.1% 72.3% 74.1% % temporary residents 18.9% 27.7% 25.9%

5.3.2 Household Tenure – Rental and Ownership Prior to 2011, Statistics Canada collected and reported data on tenure as part of the mandatory census. Presented for comparison to Census 2001-2006 data is tenure data from the 2014 Regional Survey and 2015 Employee Survey. Table 29: Household Tenure (Rental/Ownership)

Household Tenure Census 2001 Census 2006 Reg. Survey 2014*

Employee Survey 2015*

Owned 355 60.7% 430 62.3% n/a 48.9% 64 19.8% Rented, share, other 230 39.3% 260 37.7% n/a 51.1% 260 80.2% Total 585 100.0% 690 100.0% n/a 100.0% 324 100.0%

*It should be noted that the survey results reflects the tenure of survey respondents, which is not expected to reflect tenure of the overall housing supply in Tofino.

5.3.3 Household Sizes The 2011 Census Profile further provides household sizes as summarized below. Tofino`s overall average household size is slightly lower than in the ACRD and the Province of BC. Table 30: Household Sizes

Private Households Size Tofino ACRD BC 1 person 250 33% 4,115 31% 498,925 28% 2 persons 250 33% 5,185 39% 613,270 35% 3 persons 145 19% 1,860 14% 264,135 15% 4 persons 85 11% 1,390 10% 237,725 13% 5 persons 25 3% 525 4% 91,600 5% 6 or more persons 10 1% 310 2% 58,985 3% # private households 765 100% 13,385 100% 1,764,640 100% # persons in private households 1,725 30,365 4,324,505 Average # persons 2.2 2.3 2.5

Page 25 of 64

5.4 HOMEOWNER OPTIONS AVAILABLE IN TOFINO

5.4.1 Current Home Purchase Options: MLS In order to provide a measure of housing currently available for purchase in Tofino, MLS listings as of May 22, 2015 were reviewed and summarized. While there may be other homes available that are not listed on the MLS service, this should provide a snapshot of what is generally available. As the reader will note, there were 40 listings as of this date, with an average price of $1,165,825 (median $645,000). The substantially lower median price reflects the relatively smaller number of very high priced homes, which skews the average upwards. Income required for each price category is calculated based on standard mortgage financing criteria and affordability benchmarks (75% loan, 25 years, 4.5% interest). The affordability of this supply of homes for sale relative to Tofino`s population is considered in the housing ‘gap analysis’ starting on page 56 of this report. Table 31: MLS listings - Single Family, Condos and Town Homes Available May 2015

Price Range # listed Avg. $ Income Req’d 0 149,000 0 n/a n/a

150,000 199,000 0 n/a n/a 200,000 249,000 1 245,000 54,965 250,000 299,000 1 299,000 64,729 300,000 349,000 2 321,750 68,842 350,000 399,000 2 355,000 74,854 400,000 449,000 3 437,667 89,801 450,000 499,000 4 475,750 96,687 500,000 549,000 3 529,000 106,315 550,000 599,000 3 587,000 116,802 600,000 649,000 1 625,000 123,673 650,000 699,000 2 680,000 133,618 700,000 799,000 1 720,000 140,850 800,000 899,000 2 849,000 164,175 900,000 999,000 2 968,750 185,827

1,000,000 1,999,000 8 1,491,500 280,346 2,000,000 2,999,000 3 2,349,667 435,511 3,000,000 3,999,000 0 n/a n/a 4,000,000 4,999,000 1 4,950,000 905,679 5,000,000 and up 1 7,900,000 1,439,070

Total # 40 Average $ 1,165,825 221,460 Median $ 645,000 127,290

Page 26 of 64

5.4.2 Historical Sales Value The Vancouver Island Real Estate Board has provided a 10-year history of residential sales in Tofino, demonstrating a 33% increase in average sales values during that period (median prices were not available). As the reader will note average sales in terms of both numbers and value peaked in the 2008-2009 period, then experienced sharp declines as the global economy and real estate markets entered a downturn. Average prices declined 23% from the peak of $664,300 in 2008 to $514,710 in 2014. Overall during this period, average prices increased $132,756 (34.4%). Using standard affordability benchmarks, average household annual incomes would need to have increased by around $25,000-$30,000 since 2004 to keep pace with this growth in housing prices. Table 32: Vancouver Island Real Estate Board Sales 2004-2014

Vancouver Island Real Estate Board Sales TOFINO

Residential Sales

Units Listed

Units Sold % Sold Average

Price $ change % change

2004 16 7 44% 385,571 2005 13 4 31% 649,250 263,679 68.4% 2006 32 2 6% 479,750 -169,500 -26.1% 2007 40 6 15% 459,667 -20,083 -4.2% 2008 35 7 20% 664,300 204,633 44.5% 2009 26 8 31% 576,238 -88,062 -13.3% 2010 27 3 11% 485,333 -90,905 -15.8% 2011 35 3 9% 426,667 -58,666 -12.1% 2012 36 9 25% 471,914 45,247 10.6% 2013 27 5 19% 588,200 116,286 24.6% 2014 15 8 53% 514,710 -73,490 -12.5%

AVERAGE 27.5 5.6 21% 518,327 12,914 2.5% TOTAL

CHANGE 132,756 34.4%

Page 27 of 64

5.5 RENTAL OPTIONS AVAILABLE IN TOFINO

5.5.1 CBT Rental Housing Survey CMHC does not undertake rental surveys in Tofino. Data for this report relies on 2012-14 data collected by the Clayoquot Biosphere Trust (CBT), sourced from the Tofino/Ucluelet Westerly News, internet listings, bulletin boards and other local sources. This data was summarized to provide average number of units listed monthly, with the weighted average rents. The results support the perception that there is a very short supply of affordable, long-term rental units. Based on the guideline that rent should not exceed 30% of income, this supply is not affordable to much of Tofino's population. As noted below incomes from $26,284 to $56,358 would be required to afford the average rental unit in Tofino. Results for 2012 are presented for informational purposes, but caution should be taken when comparing to 2013-2014 due to a change and expansion in data collection methods. Table 33: Rental Availability (avg. # units/mo.), Cost and Income Required 2012-2014

2012 Avg. # Avg. rent Inc. req'd 1-bed 1.4 744 29,765 2-bed 2.5 1,176 47,059 3-bed 0.9 1,441 57,636 Average 4.8 1,100 43,996

2013 Avg. # Avg. rent Inc. req'd 1-bed 7.2 667 26,680 2-bed 4.7 1,131 45,244 3-bed 2.6 1,348 53,932 Average 14.4 939 37,572

2014 Avg. # Avg. rent Inc. req'd 1-bed 5.8 657 26,284 2-bed 2.8 1,186 47,424 Regional Survey 2014 3-bed 1.6 1,409 56,358 Avg. rent Inc. req'd Average 9.9 935 37,390 1,068 42,720

Diff 2013-14 Avg. # Avg. rent % diff 1-bed -1.4 -10 -1.5% 2-bed -1.9 55 4.8% 3-bed -1.0 61 4.5% Average -4.5 -5 -0.5%

Page 28 of 64

Availability fluctuated seasonally, declining significantly in the summer months. For example, for rental listings in May-July, in preparation for the peak summer months, there were significant decreases in the average number of units available per month, compared with averages from the period of January-March. Table 34: Rental Unit Seasonal Availability 2012-2014

All units Jan-Mar May-Jul Change 2012 17 8 -53% 2013 66 19 -71% 2014 40 16 -60% Average 41 14 -65%

This may support perceptions as reported in surveys and interviews that that there are significant seasonal variations in availability and it is much harder to find accommodation during the tourist season as renters are evicted to make way for vacation rentals or seasonal workers.

5.5.2 Non-market Rental Housing There are very few non-market or government subsidized rental housing units in Tofino. The community lacks any assisted living or complex/residential care units at this time, but it does have a four-unit building designed for seniors’ independent living at a subsidized rental rate. The Mount Colnett facility is operated by the Tofino Seniors Society, and gets financial support from BC Housing that pays for any operating expenses that exceed the income provided to the Society through rental charges, which are limited to 30% of the tenants’ income. The property is a large one, leased from the Crown, and has space for additional units if the right partners can be brought to the table to pursue the possibilities. The waiting list for space in the current four-unit facility was at three at the time of our research, with an expectation that the waiting list will grow as the facility increases its visibility. As well, there is a single house operated by the M’akola Rural and Native Housing Society, whose mandate is to provide safe, affordable housing for families of First Nations ancestry on Vancouver Island who are in core need. The M’akola house in Tofino offers rent-geared-to-income (RGI) housing, usually in the $300-400/month range. In the past there have been as many as 27 people on the wait listing list for M’akola’s Tofino house.2

2 JG Consulting Services, Proposed Supportive Housing Project report, West Coast Community Resources Society, Ucluelet, BC, 2014, p. 28.

Page 29 of 64

Plans are also underway to add a new 10- to 15-bed “complex care” facility in Tofino that will house both First Nations and non-First Nations seniors in need of residential care at the intermediate level.3 The plans for its design and management are modelled on those of Tsawwayuus (Rainbow Gardens), a successful 31-bed complex care facility in Port Alberni. The advisory group that is taking the lead in pursuing this development has negotiated a lease on land belonging to the Tofino Hospital, and are working with Island Health (part of the provincial health management system) to develop the project. The manager of the Port Alberni facility said in a key informant interview conducted for this study that it had taken something like 20 years from the first idea for Rainbow Gardens to reach its current fully operational status—a timetable which Tofino residents hope not to repeat. She also noted that four seniors from Tofino were living in the Port Alberni facility at the time of the interview, having no choice but to move a long way from their families and their community in order to access the level of care they need.

5.5.3 Employee Accommodation Available No formal or complete inventory of seasonal or year-round employee accommodation in Tofino is maintained. This information is requested from employers as part of the business license application and renewal process, but this data is not consistently collected or tallied. For the purposes of this study, the consultants’ survey of employers requested the number and type of employee accommodation that they are currently providing. As one might expect, not all employers in Tofino responded to the survey, and therefore the employer accommodation data below does not represent a full inventory of what may be available in Tofino. For reference, Housing Needs Assessment (HNA) survey data is presented below in comparison to both the 2002 and 2003 surveys conducted by the Community Futures Development Corporation (CFDC). In 2015, employers were asked how many employees were “inadequately housed” last year; they indicated that 292 was the maximum number, which peaked in August (see Section 7.3.3). Assuming 292 units are needed in addition to the 248 already provided, the total needed would be 540.

3 Assisted Living facilities are defined as residences which offers housing, hospitality services and personal assistance to adults who can live independently but require regular help with daily activities. Complex care residential facilities are designed for individuals who require daily nursing care as well as a high level of other support services.

Page 30 of 64

Table 35: Employee Accommodation

Employee accommodation data 2002 CFDC (seasonal only)

2003 CFDC (all employees)

2015 NHA (all employees)

# employers responding 15 83 71 # employees 206 1,122 1,908 # accommodation units provided 96 241 248 % employees provided accommodation 47% 21% 13% # units needed 165 448 540 % employees needing housing (est.) 80% 40% 28% Potential shortfall (est.) 69 207 292

The data from these sources is not directly comparable because it is not complete and the distinction between seasonal and year-round employees was not always made. Additionally, it is recognized that this likely oversimplifies a complex situation. However, it is the only data available, and if used as a rough benchmark, it does suggest the potential need for a near doubling of the number of the employee accommodations.

5.5.4 Impact of Vacation Rentals Short term vacation rentals (STVRs), or just “vacation rentals”, are accommodation units that are made available on a short term basis to accommodate visitors on holiday. Vacation rentals were cited as a problem in many of the study’s interviews and surveys, with opinion running very high that the serious shortage of rental housing in Tofino is due in large part to the increase in vacation rentals as owners turn to this more lucrative option for their rental properties. Some of the quantitative evidence pointed this as an issue as well, with strong seasonal fluctuation in the availability of rental accommodation. The review of rental listings from the CBT surveys for 2012-2014 indicated an average decrease of 65% in availability during the summer months. The largest decline in listings was for 3-bedroom units (78%), potentially most impacting families with children. Statistics Canada census data appears to point to an increase in vacation rentals as well (either vacation rentals or owner use), with a marked decline in the percentage of dwellings that are occupied by ‘usual’ residents over the 10-year period from 2001-2011 (81.1% to 74.1%) of all dwellings (with a corresponding increase in temporary residents from 18.9% to 25.9%); this is significantly lower than the ACRD (87.5%) or BC a (90.7%) in 2011.

Page 31 of 64

6. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

6.1 IDEAL HOUSING STOCK TO MEET HOUSEHOLDS’ AFFORDABILITY NEEDS No community will have a housing stock that always and perfectly meets the community’s needs and residents’ preferences in terms of numbers, size, form and price. That is a complex matrix of needs that changes over time and in response to changes in both the housing stock (additions and deletions) and changing features of the population. The needs of seasonal (non-resident) employees who are not permanent residents of Tofino will be examined separately, as their income data is not reflected in Census or Regional Survey results.

6.1.1 Determining what is Affordable Measuring housing affordability involves comparing total shelter costs to a household’s ability to meet them, given their level of income. Shelter costs are considered to include basic utilities, and for homeowners, taxes and insurance. Using rough estimates about utility, tax and insurance costs, an estimate of rental rates and home price that show levels affordable to the population of Tofino was constructed. An affordability benchmark of 30% of income was used for rental housing, and conventional mortgage qualifications (4.5% interest, 25 year amortization, 75% loan-to-value ratio) was used for homeownership. Built into the monthly homeowner shelter costs is an estimate for taxes and insurance and utilities. While this number may be debated, it is a starting point for discussion and evaluation. Table 36: Affordability Targets

Affordability Targets Summary Median Income

Affordable Rent

Affordable Purchase

Entire population (2006 census) 43,842 1,096 245,000 Resident employees (2015 employer survey) 27,000 675 127,000 Regional survey (2014) (EST.) 38,000 950 195,000 Non-resident seasonal employees (2015 employer) 21,000 525 91,000 Average 32,461 812 164,500

Page 32 of 64

6.1.2 Ideal Affordable Housing Supply According to Residents’ Income To create a profile of an ‘ideal’ housing stock to match Tofino’s household and income profile, a summary of the household income is reproduced below. Using standard affordability benchmarks and calculations, affordable rental rates (assumed to include utilities) and affordable purchase prices for each income category are produced. This produces a conceptual or ‘ideal’ housing stock for comparison to the existing housing in order to calculate any ‘gaps’ in current supply. Highlighted rents and purchase prices are intended to signify the points where a household might typically move from rental to home purchase. This suggests that a wide range of housing prices are needed in Tofino, with a median purchase price of $245,000 or median rental rate of $1,096. To illustrate how this table can be used, it is noted that ideally there would be a substantial supply (up to 33%) of rental housing priced at $625 or less. Looking more closely, it also highlights the need for some supply of very low rental units ($375 and less). As another example at the other end of the range, it indicates that a relatively large segment of the population (16.7%) can afford rental housing priced at $2,500+/mo. and can purchase housing priced at $595,000+.

Table 37: Ideal Rental and Purchase Prices

Household Income Census 2006

# households

% households

Avg. income

Affordable Rent

Affordable Purchase

Under $10,000 70 10.1% 10,000 250 10,000 $10,000 - $19,999 80 11.6% 15,000 375 65,000 $20,000 - $29,999 80 11.6% 25,000 625 130,000 $30,000 - $39,999 65 9.4% 35,000 875 195,000 $40,000 - $49,999 90 13.0% 45,000 1,125 255,000 $50,000 - $59,999 60 8.7% 55,000 1,375 320,000 $60,000 - $69,999 55 8.0% 65,000 1,625 375,000 $70,000 - $79,999 20 2.9% 75,000 1,875 440,000 $80,000 - $89,999 25 3.6% 85,000 2,125 500,000 $90,000 - $99,999 25 3.6% 95,000 2,375 565,000 $100,000 + 115 16.7% 100,000+ 2,500+ 595,000+ Total # households 690 100.0% Median household income

43,842 1,096 245,000

Average household income

58,958 1,474 335,000 This may be a somewhat crude estimate of affordability, but it is established as a frame work for the purpose of comparing ideal to actual housing supply to identify any ‘gaps’. Further, there may be various mechanisms to assist a household with their shelter costs, including for example, loans/gifts for down payments, rent-to-own scenarios, rental assistance, etc. These may be appropriate and available in some circumstances, but have not been considered in this analysis.

Median

33% need rent < or = $625

Page 33 of 64

6.2 AFFORDABILITY OF RENTAL SUPPLY

6.2.1 Clayoquot Biosphere Trust – Rental Survey As reported previously, the Clayoquot Biosphere Trust (CBT) monitors and reports rental listings in Tofino and reports rates and availability (see p. 28-29). This data further separates listings by unit size (1, 2 and 3 bedrooms) and levels of affordability for each size (CBT defines ‘affordable’ as less than $500, $800, and $1,000 respectively). The 2014 rental listing are summarized below to provide a snapshot of average rates in 2014 for comparison to resident incomes, and to evaluate overall affordability for the population. As the reader will note, there are very few units available of any size that are defined by CBT as ’affordable’. For example, in the 2-bedroom unit category, 0.1 units/month indicates that there was only one listing in this price range during the entire year. Table 38: Rental Housing Availability

Unit type Average # listed/mo.

Average $ rent

Income Required

1 Bed < $500 1.4 up to 20,000 1 Bed $500-$975 4.3 20,000 39,000 Total/avg 1-bed 5.8 657 26,280 2 Bed < $800 0.1 up to 32,000 2 Bed $800-$1,367 2.7 32,000 54,680 Total/avg 2-bed 2.8 1,186 47,440 3 Bed < $1,000 0.1 up to 40,000 3 Bed $1,000-$1,650 1.5 40,000 66,000 Total/avg 3-bed 1.6 1,409 56,360 Total/avg all units 9.9 935 39,390

While rental rate categories from this rental listing data do not neatly correspond with the income-based ’ideal’ ranges identified in the previous section, this summary does easily reveal where there are gaps in the rental housing supply for a significant portion of the population. Clearly, there is very little available to households earning under $20,000 per year (21.7% of households); those that are available in that price range are only 1-bedroom units, meaning low income families that require 2-3 bedroom units would have very few, if any, options to secure affordable rental accommodation. Also, as noted previously, up to 33% of households would require rents of $625 or less; in May 2014 only one was listed in the 1-bedroom category.

Page 34 of 64

6.2.2 Employee Survey – Rental Rates As described in Section 5 of this report, the consultants undertook an extensive survey of employees to gain their insights into the housing situation in Tofino, and their housing needs in particular. Of the 458 employees surveyed, 345 reported being year-round residents of Tofino. Of those, 201 reported that they were currently renters; 185 reported their rental rates. Table 39: Reported Rents/Ideal Rental Supply

Employee Survey Reported Rents – Compared to “ideal” rental supply

Rent Ideal % Actual # Actual % Average $ Ideal # Over/(short) Up to 250 10.1% 2 1.1% $188 19 -17 251 - 375 11.6% 5 2.7% $319 21 -16 376 - 625 11.6% 56 30.3% $522 21 35 626 - 875 9.4% 48 25.9% $734 17 31

874 - 1,125 13.0% 21 11.4% $965 24 -3 1,126 - 1,375 8.7% 38 20.5% $1,207 16 22 1,376 - 1,625 8.0% 11 5.9% $1,495 15 -4 1,626 - 1,875 2.9% 2 1.1% $1,675 5 -3 1,876 - 2,125 3.6% 2 1.1% $2,000 7 -5

2,126 - 2,500+ 3.6% 0 0.0% n/a 7 -7 Up to 250 16.7% 0 0.0% n/a 31 -31

Total actual units/ avg. rents 185 $845 These reported rents were summarized for comparison with the previously constructed “ideal” supply. We recognize, however, that this is not directly or reliably comparable, as tenant survey respondents would likely not match the income profile of all households. Also, some were in sharing situations, which would understate the actual rental rates. Accordingly, the respondents were also asked about affordability of their personal housing situation as reported below.

6.2.3 Employee Survey – Rental Affordability Employees were also asked to report on the percentage of their income that is allocated to housing costs; 173 resident employees and 45 seasonal employees responded. As indicated earlier, there are some inconsistencies due to the inclusion (or not) of utilities in rents. Nevertheless, the responses illustrate the strong percentage of resident employees currently experiencing affordability problems (56.6%), including a critical 34.1% paying over 50% of their income for rent. Those paying 70%+ (some as high as 80%) in rent are particularly vulnerable (6.9% reported paying 70%+). Affordability for seasonal (non-resident) employees appeared to be more of a challenge than for permanent residents, with fewer reporting shelter costs at 30% or less and 6.7% reported paying 70%+ of their income on rent.

Page 35 of 64

Table 40: Resident Employees’ Rental Affordability

Permanent Resident Renters - Rent % Income Rent % income Description # Employees % Employees

0-30% Generally deemed to be affordable 75 43.4% 31-49% Core Need–esp. difficult at lower incomes 39 22.5% 50%+ At risk of homelessness 59 34.1%

TOTAL 173 100.0%

Table 41: Seasonal Employees’ Rental Affordability

Seasonal (non-resident) Renters - Rent % Income % income Description # Employees % Employees

0-30% Generally deemed to be affordable 15 33.3% 31-49% Core Need – esp. difficult at lower incomes 24 53.3% 50%+ At risk of homelessness 6 13.3%

Total 45 100.0%

6.2.4 2014 Regional Survey – Rental Rates Another indicator of rental affordability was obtained from the 2014 Regional Survey. Reported rents have been summarized for comparison with the constructed “ideal” supply. Again, this may not be directly or reliably comparable, as tenant survey respondents would likely not match the income profile of all households. Also, any sharing situations could understate rental rates.

Table 42: Regional Survey Rental Rates Compared to Ideal Supply

2014 Regional Survey Reported Rents – Compared to “ideal” rental supply

Rent Ideal % Actual # Actual % Average $ Ideal # Over/ (short) 250 10.1% 1 1.0% $200 10 -9 375 11.6% 1 1.0% $350 12 -11 625 11.6% 25 24.8% $529 12 13 875 9.4% 27 26.7% $761 10 17

1,125 13.0% 17 16.8% $1,013 13 4 1,375 8.7% 16 15.8% $1,227 9 7 1,625 8.0% 11 10.9% $1,459 8 3 1,875 2.9% 1 1.0% $1,700 3 -2 2,125 3.6% 2 2.0% $1,950 4 -2 2,375 3.6% 0 0.0% n/a 4 -4 2,500 16.7% 0 0.0% n/a 17 -17

Total units 101 avg. rents $919

Page 36 of 64

6.3 AFFORDABILITY OF HOMEOWNER SUPPLY As presented earlier, as of May 2015, there were 40 MLS listings for homes in Tofino, including single family, condos and townhomes. These listing have been re-grouped below to facilitate matching to the affordable purchase prices calculated to be affordable to Tofino residents. This comparison can be used to help illustrate where there are gaps in the homeowner supply. This does not provide definitive targets, rather a rough idea of what price ranges the current population can afford, but that are not currently available on the market. For example, the first line in the table indicates that in an ideal and balanced market, 13 of the 40 homes for sale should be priced under $130,000 if one were to provide opportunities for all residents to purchase homes. Clearly, that is not the objective, as many will choose to rent, and the lowest income residents could likely have difficulty qualifying for mortgages, saving for a down payment, etc. Moving further down the table, however, the indicators start to become more relevant in that they clearly illustrate an undersupply in the lower price ranges, and an apparent over supply in the higher prices ranges. Table 43: MLS Listings (May-2015) Compared to Ideal Supply

Purchase Price # supply

available (MLS)

% supply available

(MLS) Income targets

Ideal % supply

to meet needs

Ideal # to

meet needs

Surplus / (shortfall)

Up to $130,000 0 0% 10,000 33.3% 13 -13 $131,000 - $195,000 0 0% 15,000 9.4% 4 -4 $196,000 - $255,000 1 3% 25,000 11.6% 5 -4 $256,000 - $320,000 2 5% 35,000 9.4% 4 -2 $321,000 - $375,000 3 8% 45,000 13.0% 5 -2 $376,000 - $440,000 2 5% 55,000 8.7% 3 -1 $441,000 - $500,000 5 13% 65,000 8.0% 3 2 $501,000 - $565,000 3 8% 75,000 2.9% 1 2 $566,000 - $595,000 2 5% 85,000 3.6% 1 1 $595,000 and up 22 55% 95,000 20.3% 1 21

TOTAL 40 100% 100.0% 40 0

Page 37 of 64

6.3.1 Employee Survey –Homeowner Affordability In the employee survey, homeowners were asked to report on the percentage of their income that is allocated to their total housing costs. Very few seasonal (non-residents) reported being home owners in Tofino, but 46 permanent residents did. Their responses suggest homeowners struggle with affordability too, with very few (15%) paying 30% or less.

Table 44: Resident Employee Homeowners’ Affordability

Permanent Resident Homeowners - Total Shelter Costs % Income % income Description # Employees % Employees

0-30% Generally deemed to be affordable 7 15.2% 31-49% Core Need – esp. difficult at lower incomes 20 43.5% 50%+ At risk of homelessness 19 41.3%

Total 46 100.0%

Page 38 of 64

6.4 SENIORS NEEDS The research for this study identified very little purpose built seniors housing in Tofino, with the exception of 4 units of independent living at Mount Colnett Villas. There are no assisted living or complex care units for seniors who need increased supports. Community members interviewed reported that the community is losing seniors, and some suggested it may be due to lack of appropriate affordable housing. Also noted was the long distance to medical facilities, insufficient support services to enable them to stay at home safely. It was outside the scope of this study to examine seniors’ support service needs, however, gaps in these services were well documented in the ‘Age Friendly’ action planning process. The District of Tofino has committed to exploring options to make it easier for older residents to age actively and safely in the community, and in 2013 undertook the development of an action plan towards becoming an ‘Age Friendly’ community4 . ‘Age Friendly’ is an initiative developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) to help communities prepare for the challenges of an ageing population by examining many features of a community’s infrastructure, services and opportunities. Affordable, safe and diverse housing for seniors with a variety of needs is viewed to be a service that is essential to enable seniors to remain in the community. Tofino’s 2013 ‘Age Friendly’ action plan identified the following gaps in services that could help seniors to remain more successfully in Tofino as they age:

• a renovation program to accommodate changing mobility needs, • a strategy to assist low income seniors with escalating housing costs, • supports for families caring for their seniors, • in home services such as laundry, meal preparation, foot care, and pet care, and • an adult day care program.

Table 45: ‘Age Friendly’ Recommended Actions

Age Friendly Recommended Actions Who When Develop housing strategy District of Tofino Immediate Consider seniors need and budgets in new developments

District of Tofino Immediate

Support development of Assisted Living & Complex Care units on hospital grounds

Pacific Rim Senior Care & Rainbow Gardens Native Health Care Societies

Immediate & ongoing

Promote clustered, single level housing District of Tofino 1-3 yrs. Develop educational resources Pacific Rim Senior Care Society 1-3 yrs. Develop home renovation program District of Tofino & private

contractors 3-5 yrs.

4 Age Friendly Tofino Community Action Plan, Roslyn Newman in Collaboration with the District of Tofino, 2013

Page 39 of 64

6.5 VULNERABLE POPULATIONS Efforts were made to more fully understand the needs of Tofino’s more vulnerable populations, as problems with housing affordability and availability are typically more acute for these populations. While there is no strict definition of a vulnerable population, for the purposes of this report this is considered to include those with additional poverty and/or health challenges that may result in the need for additional supports, either in the community or in their housing.

6.5.1 Shelter Allowance Rates While likely not the case for all, it assumed that many if not most of the more vulnerable residents would be receiving some for of income assistance. Shelter rates, or the maximum allocated to rent, depend on the number of family members living in the household. Current rates are summarized below, suggesting most households receiving income assistance would have very serious difficulty in finding affordable rental accommodation in Tofino. Table 46: Shelter Allowance Rates

Household size

Maximum Shelter

1 $375 2 $570 3 $660 4 $700 5 $750 6 $785 7 $820

6.5.2 Core Need and Risk of Homelessness Prior to 2011, Statistics Canada reported the number of households that were facing housing affordability challenges, defined as those in ‘core need’ who are paying more than 30% of their income on their housing. It is generally accepted that households paying more than 50% of their income on housing are at risk of homelessness, as any interruption in their income or unexpected expense could easily made paying rent or a mortgage impossible. The 2006 Census showed 38% of renters in Tofino in core need, not dissimilar to the ACRD (39%) or the Province of BC (40%). There is a much higher proportion of homeowners in core need in Tofino (31%) compared to the ACRD (14%).

Page 40 of 64

Table 47: Core Need and Risk of Homelessness (2006 Census)

All Renters 2006 Tofino RD BC Canada

Average rent $805 $592 $828 $728

Paying > 30% 38% 39% 43% 40%

Paying > 50% 23% 32% 35% 34% All Owners

Average value $493,615 $258,479 $418,703 $263,369

Average pmt. $1,108 $714 $1,059 $998

Paying > 30% 31% 14% 23% 18%

Paying > 50% 21% 11% 19% 15% Single Renters

Average rent $724 $645 $907 $785

Paying > 30% 30% 29% 35% 31%

Paying > 50% n/a n/a n/a n/a

6.5.3 Homelessness Homeless counts are not undertaken systematically in Tofino, and therefore the consultants are unable to provide an estimate of the scope of this population. This lack of hard numbers could present an impediment in securing resources (federal or otherwise) to develop solutions. There is an impression among service providers that the numbers are increasing, and that this population is younger than it used to be.

The most recent information available is from the 2012 Homelessness Outreach Enhancement Project (HOEP) report undertaken for the Westcoast Community Resource Society. The contractor for this project connected with 36 people in Tofino/Ucluelet, 23 of whom were absolutely homeless (the others were at risk, in transition shelter, etc). Their key finding was that most reported the primary reason for their homelessness was poverty, coupled with the scarcity of safe, accessible, low cost housing options. The majority also reported a wide range of health problems, including mental illness, addictions and physical disabilities.

In the 2015 community consultation opinion was nuanced about homelessness as a priority for action. Some appreciated that for individuals, it should be treated a priority, but in terms of overall community needs and priorities, the main focus and resources should go elsewhere. It was fairly widely believed that many or most of those who are homeless are so by choice, e.g. young folks coming to Tofino for a life adventure, for whom sleeping rough is not traumatic.

Employers reported that for seasonal employees, if they are forced into the equivalent of homelessness, it can have a significant impact on their ability to work and present the desired image to customers (i.e. if they are sleeping in a car or tent, and don’t have reliable access to washing/bathing facilities).

Page 41 of 64

7. COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES ON NEED NOTE: this section of the report is a summary of the more detailed account of the extensive community consultation process undertaken for this needs assessment. It can be found in accompanying report titled “Community Consultations Report – a Companion to the Housing Needs Assessment”, which should be read in conjunction with this volume to fully appreciate community perspectives on needs and potential solutions to affordable housing issues. The community engagement process was carried out in two phases. The first was a series of 15 key informant interviews, conducted after background documents were reviewed and an approach was created to focus the interviews. The second consisted of a series of four surveys designed to get information and views on affordable housing from different sectors of the community, each with a different relationship to housing issues and a particular point of view or expertise to contribute. The four groups were:

i. Service providers, with their unique perspectives on vulnerable populations; ii. Employers, with their perspectives on the needs of their businesses, but also on the

housing challenges faced by their employees and possible solutions; iii. Employees, whose experiences as full time or temporary, seasonal workers help to

define Tofino’s housing problems, and their solutions; iv. Housing providers, who may have unique insights on how to best meet the needs,

who may (in some cases) play a role in creating more affordable housing. Included in this section of the Housing Needs Assessment is a brief summary of those results, with a focus on those aspects that impact directly on the specific gaps in Tofino’s affordable housing supply.

7.1 KEY INFORMANTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON NEED “Key informants” were selected based on their expertise, experience and background on Tofino’s housing situation. Their insights made a major contribution to the discussion and they contributed valuable ideas for solutions to the affordable housing challenges that Tofino is facing.

The consultants conducted separate hour-long interviews with 15 key informants. The interviews were structured around a pre-set interview guide, but were flexible enough to give interviewees the opportunity to make additional comments. The results are summarized below. See the accompanying “Community Consultations Report – a Companion to the Housing Needs Assessment” for details.

Page 42 of 64

7.1.1 Perspectives on Tofino’s Affordable Housing Problem Interviewees’ experiences on affordable housing issues was direct, as housing managers, local government officials with housing-related responsibilities—and as Tofino residents who have experienced challenges finding acceptable, affordable housing. Most interviewees felt that adequate affordable housing is essential to “community health”; some meant literally, pointing to physical ill health suffered by those who are badly housed, and other others meant it more as economic health of businesses in the community. Still others meant it in broad social terms: i.e., a community’s shared responsibility for the safety and security of all its residents as part of their health and well-being. The key informants were in general agreement that there is a poor match between rent and entry level homeownership costs and the average wages being paid in Tofino. Other contributing factors mentioned include the high cost of land, the impact of vacation rentals and restrictions imposed by some local bylaws. This combination of factors results in residents being forced to make difficult, stressful and sometimes risky decisions about where and how to live. They may get trapped in “the west coast shuffle,” having to move many times because they cannot find an acceptable place to live with security of tenure. Eventually, some residents leave Tofino in order to find an acceptable home they can afford.

7.1.2 Priority of Needs The response was nearly unanimous that lack of affordable housing options is the second or third most serious problem facing Tofino, after water and/or sewer. Some drew attention to lack of food security as a growing problem those at the low end of the wage scale, offering evidence that some have to choose between food and rent, with no real choice but to pay the rent regardless on the impact on other basic needs. Not all agreed on whose needs are most serious, naming all of the following groups as facing significant housing affordability challenges in the Tofino context:

• people who want to become full time residents of the community, • young families with children, • people who want or need to rent, • those who want to get into the market (first time buyers), • seasonal employees, especially those who are particularly low waged, • some employers who cannot afford to supply staff housing, and • vulnerable populations such as low income seniors and those with multiple barriers to

employment

Page 43 of 64

In general, there was greater emphasis on the lack of options for renters than for buyers, pointing to an increased tendency for owners to turn to the market for vacation rentals as a more lucrative option for their rental properties. In terms of home ownership, it was suggested that first time buyers may be facing more serious affordability barriers now than in previous years, and that this is damaging to the community in the long run as families who want to own their own homes leave Tofino in favour of other areas where housing is more affordable. When discussing the needs of vulnerable populations, informants focused on those of low income seniors, particularly those in need of higher levels of home care or care in a residential facility. Informants pointed out that many seniors have been forced to leave Tofino to find adequate residential care as their challenges mount, a significant loss to the community. It was also noted that Aboriginal families face additional challenges in caring for their elders because of their communities’ isolation from anything more than very basic services. Interviewees resisted naming a single group as “the” priority. Most recognized that short term prioritization for immediate action would probably be unavoidable, but stressed the need for a comprehensive housing strategy that addresses the full range of affordable housing needs.

7.1. 3 Leadership Responsibility Several key informants identified the ‘down-loading’ of housing responsibility by senior levels of government to local governments in recent years. About half of the key informants therefore felt the District of Tofino has to lead, and to use their available powers to the fullest extent possible. The other half agreed that the District needs to lead, but added that it should partner with other levels of government, Tofino’s employers, social agencies and other potential partners such as builders, developers and local lending institutions.

7.1.4 Ideas from Past Affordable Housing Initiatives About half of the interviewees felt strongly that there were very good ideas brought forward about affordable housing in the pre-2008 period that should be reviewed as possible foundations or directions for action now. They mentioned in particular the potential of District of Tofino owned Lot 114, the 15.9 hectare 39.2 acre) site located between the Community Centre and Tonquin Park, near the Community School. This site is zoned for multi-family housing, and was the subject of affordable housing proposals between 2004 and 2008. These reports include conceptual drawings and preliminary financial feasibility analysis and propose solutions that may well still be relevant today. They are summarized in Appendix 2.

Page 44 of 64

Interviewees involved who worked with the former Tofino Housing Corporation (now dissolved) generally agreed that a specialist agency or administrative entity of some kind is required to provide the dedicated professional expertise necessary to successfully plan and undertake affordable community housing projects.

7.1.5 Priorities for Council About half of the key informants felt that Council should “just get started”, and that any affordable housing initiative would be a step in the right direction. Many had quite specific suggestions relating to such things as development cost charges (DCCs), bylaw revisions, and potential of funding under Tofino’s “Resort Municipality” status. It is outside the scope of this study to assess these in detail, but they are worth reviewing. The reader should refer to the accompanying report titled “Community Consultations Report – a Companion to the Housing Needs Assessment” for details.

7.2 SOCIAL SERVICE PROVIDERS’ PERSPECTIVES ON NEED The consultants noted that past studies of affordable housing in Tofino have focused largely on employee housing. However, often vulnerable populations are most seriously impacted. To provide insight into the housing needs of these residents the consultants conducted a brief survey of social service providers in the District. Seventeen service providers responded to an online survey. They were working for agencies such as the Westcoast Community Resources Society, various branches of Island Health, RCMP Victim Services, Fishes and Loaves (a volunteer-run, once-per-week free lunch program), the Pacific Rim Hospice Society, and the Coastal Family Resource Coalition.

7.2.1 Affordable Housing for Vulnerable Residents All service providers reported that they were familiar with the housing situation of their clients, describing the majority as living in housing which is inadequate. In rank order, the identified the housing problems that their clients are experiencing as:

1. Lack of secure tenure (e.g. being forced to move in the summer). 2. Housing costs that are more than 30% of their monthly income. 3. The need to cut back on food or other essentials in order to meet housing costs. 4. Unhealthy living conditions (e.g., damp, mold, lack of basic facilities, etc.) 5. Overcrowding. 6. Accommodation in significant need of repairs. 7. Others such as landlord abuse; single mothers staying in Tofino because the fathers of

their children are here; insufficient resources to make healthy food choices.

Page 45 of 64

7.2.2 Priority of Needs When asked whose housing needs are the most urgent, responses were ranked as follows:

1. Low income families with children. 2. Those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. 3. Low income working residents. 4. Residents on social assistance or disability. 5. Low income seniors. 6. Seniors in need of residential care. 7. Short term, seasonal employees.

7.3 EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVES ON NEED, PRIORITIES AND SOLUTIONS

7.3.1 Employers and their Employees Requests to employers were sent to the 300+ members of the Tofino Chamber of Commerce; responses were received from 71 employers, representing a wide variety of businesses types and sizes, with employee numbers ranging from 2 to almost 300. In total, these employers reported having 1,906 employees, almost evenly divided between year round (53%) and seasonal (non-resident) employees (47%). Table 48: Survey Respondents Employment Status

Employment status # employees % of total Year round (resident) 1,014 53.2% Seasonal (non-resident) 892 46.8% TOTAL 1,906 100.0%

To help establish the changes in housing need throughout the year, the employers reported an estimate of the total number of employees by month. As expected, the number of employees peaks in July but it remains significant all year round, as shown below. Table 49: Employees by Month and % of July Peak

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Number 796 828 892 969 1,109 1,258 1,341 1,333 1,154 1,004 859 806 % of peak 59% 62% 67% 72% 83% 94% 100% 99% 86% 75% 64% 60%

Employers also provided a demographic and income profile of their employees, including age, gender, family status and income. These results are summarized and presented in the Demographics section of this report, and where applicable, compared to census data.

Page 46 of 64

7.3.2 Employees Commuting to Tofino Employers reported that 75% of their year round employees live in Tofino and 25% commute from another community. Almost half of commuters are from a fish farming operation which buses their employees daily from Port Alberni (125 km away). Most other commuters live in Ucluelet (40 km), and a few commute from nearby First Nations settlements, some of which are connected to Tofino only by boat.

7.3.3 Employers’ perceptions of employees’ housing problems Many employers help employees find accommodation, especially their seasonal workers, giving them advice, leads and in some cases, staff housing. But this is far from solving all problems. To get an estimate, the survey asked employers how many of their employees (year round and seasonal) were inadequately housed, by month. When compared to the total # of employees, the percentage who are inadequately housed peaks in August at 22% (292 employees). Table 50: Employees Inadequately Housed

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec # Empl. 796 828 892 969 1,109 1,258 1,341 1,333 1,154 1,004 859 806 # inadeq 81 81 97 144 199 265 285 292 228 130 87 82 % inadeq 10% 10% 11% 15% 18% 21% 21% 22% 20% 13% 10% 10%

Most employers (71%) said they expect the housing situation facing their employees to be worse this year than last year. About 27% thought it would be about the same; only 3% thought it would be better. They listed the top four problems preventing their employees from finding affordable housing in Tofino, in ranked order, as follows:

1. Lack of availability. 2. Lack of affordability. 3. Insecurity of tenure (need for frequent moves). 4. Overcrowding.

Over 50 employers responded at some length about what they see as the cause for the increasing challenges for employee housing. The overall theme of responses focused on three reasons:

1. Conversion of rental housing to short-term vacation rentals. 2. The increase in tourism.

Page 47 of 64

3. District of Tofino policies and regulations, specifically, not challenging illegal vacation rentals, the lengthy process for development approvals, and restrictive zoning related to rental suites, accessory cottages, trailers, and other possible options.

Importantly, a large majority of employers (81%) were very or somewhat concerned that housing issues would prevent them from staffing up to full capacity this summer; many recalled having either lost employees in the past year because of housing issues, or had a number of seasonal employees unable to accept a job offer because they could not find affordable housing.

7.3.4 Employers’ Plans and Perspectives on Solutions Twenty-six employers reported that they are providing staff housing, 13 of them to both seasonal and year round employees, 11 of them to seasonal employees only, and 2 to year round employees only. Many employers also reported that they are considering or definitely planning to provide additional staff housing spaces in the future, as summarized below. Those who checked “maybe if…” in the survey options identified several obstacles, mostly related the cost of buying, renting or building staff housing. Issues of zoning and construction approval were also mentioned. Table 51: Employers Considering Future Provision of Employee Housing

Housing Plans # employers % employers For year round employees 14 21.9% For seasonal employees 6 9.4% Maybe, if…. 21 32.8% No 23 35.9% Total 64 100.0%

Most employers reported that new purpose-built off-site housing would be of benefit to them, especially for seasonal staff (54.9% of employers), but also for year-round staff (35.2%). Table 52: Employer Interest in Off-site Employee Housing

Off-site would benefit # employers % employers For year round employees 25 35.2% For seasonal employees 39 54.9% No 7 9.9% Total 71 100.0%

Page 48 of 64

Employers also estimated the number of spaces they needed, seasonally and year-round, totalling 202. While most did not specify the employee type for whom it was most needed, among those who did specify, the greatest need was for seasonal employees (77 or 38.1%). Table 52: Off-site Employee Housing Units Needed

New spaces needed # employers % employers For year round employees 28 13.9% For seasonal employees 77 38.1% Not specified 97 48.0% Total 202 100.0%

A potentially very important finding in relation to community economic development, 41% of employers said they would likely hire more staff if purpose-built, off-site employee housing was made available. Further, and as an indication of the importance they place on the issues of affordable housing overall, a strong majority of employers (74%) said they would be willing to work with other employers and local officials to find and/or develop solutions. Some said they were “unsure” if they would be willing (24%), and only 2% said they were not willing. Willingness to partner financially was more of a challenge, although also encouraging, with 39% of employers indicating willingness, and 25% saying “maybe” they might be (36% said “no”).

7.4 EMPLOYEES’ PERSPECTIVES ON NEED AND PRIORITIES

7.4.1 Employees in Tofino Requests for input from employees through an online survey were made via the Tofino Chamber of Commerce to member employers, the District of Tofino’s website and the social media sites it uses, and through direct contact by members of the District Council and the Housing Management Committee. The survey was accessed by 482 employees, and most questions got responses from 300-400 employees. The proportion of year round vs. seasonal (non-resident) employees did not match the near-even split reported by employers (53% vs. 47%), likely because seasonal workers had just begun to arrive in Tofino during the survey period. Nevertheless, it did reach 107 seasonal non-resident employees as summarised below. In most cases, employee data was analyzed according to residency status (as opposed to employment status), because the housing needs of seasonal, non-resident employees differ

Page 49 of 64

from both permanent resident employees whether they are employed year-round or just in the high season. Table 54: Employee Employment Status

Employment status Year Round residents Seasonal (non-

residents) Total Full time, year round 269 82.8% 28 26.2% 297 68.8% Part time, year round 23 7.1% 3 2.8% 26 6.0% Full time, seasonally 28 8.6% 66 61.7% 94 21.8% Part time, seasonally 5 1.5% 10 9.3% 15 3.5% TOTAL 325 100.0% 107 100.0% 432 100.0% % TOTAL 75.2% 24.8% 100.0%

Employees provided demographic and income information, including age, gender, family status and income. These results are summarized and presented in the applicable Demographics section of this report, and where applicable, compared to census data and/or employer reported data.

7.4.2 Employees’ Housing Situations The majority of employees were renting their accommodation (59.8%); sharing was more prevalent amongst non-residents (22%) than residents (12%). Table 55: Employee Housing Tenure

Tenure Year Round

residents Seasonal (non-

residents) Total

Own 64 19.8% 10 9.6% 74 17.3% Rent 201 62.0% 55 52.9% 256 59.8% Share 39 12.0% 23 22.1% 62 14.5% Other 20 6.2% 16 15.4% 36 8.4% TOTAL 324 100.0% 104 100.0% 428 100.0%

Employees also reported in more detail on the type of accommodation they were living in, which is shown in the following table. Notably, a significant percentage of the seasonal non-residents (about 25%) were living in the less permanent types of accommodation such as trailers, tents and boats, or were even essentially homeless (couch surfing).

Page 50 of 64

Table 56: Employee Accommodation Types

Type of accommodation Year Round residents

Seasonal (non-residents) Total

Single family house 105 33.1% 28 26.7% 133 31.5% Duplex/attached townhouse 49 15.5% 7 6.7% 56 13.3% Apartment, condo or suite 100 31.5% 21 20.0% 121 28.7% Staff housing, private facilities 11 3.5% 4 3.8% 15 3.6% Staff housing, shared facilities 20 6.3% 19 18.1% 39 9.2% Mobile home, trailer or R/V 16 5.0% 8 7.6% 24 5.7% Tent, camper, temporary shelter 1 0.3% 7 6.7% 8 1.9% Boat or other floating home 6 1.9% 4 3.8% 10 2.4% Couch surfing 9 2.8% 7 6.7% 16 3.8% TOTAL 317 100.0% 105 100.0% 422 100.0%

The majority of employees (81% overall) reported receiving no housing assistance from employers. However, close to 13% of resident employees and 28% of seasonal employees were living in staff housing. Table 57: Employer Housing Assistance

Housing assistance for Employees

Year Round residents

Seasonal (non-residents) Total

No 274 85.1% 75 70.1% 349 81.4% Staff housing, ON site 28 8.7% 12 11.2% 40 9.3% Staff housing, OFF site 13 4.0% 17 15.9% 30 7.0% Housing allowance 7 2.2% 3 2.8% 10 2.3% TOTAL 322 100.0% 107 100.0% 429 100.0%

7.4.3 Employees’ Housing Concerns Most employees reported that they were either mostly or somewhat satisfied with their housing situations (over 76%), as shown in the following table. However, a significant number (over 23%) reported that they were not satisfied. Levels of dissatisfaction were noticeably higher among non-residents than residents.

Page 51 of 64

Table 58: Levels of Satisfaction with Housing

Satisfaction levels Year Round residents

Seasonal (non-residents) Total

Mostly satisfactory 179 55.9% 41 39.4% 220 51.9% Somewhat satisfactory 76 23.8% 28 26.9% 104 24.5% Not very satisfactory 41 12.8% 20 19.2% 61 14.4% Not at all satisfactory 24 7.5% 15 14.4% 39 9.2% TOTAL 320 100.0% 104 100.0% 424 100.0%

Employees further indicated how their accommodation was unsatisfactory, including all choices that applied to them from the list shown in the table below. The separate year-round and seasonal columns in the table indicate the total number of responses and the percentage of that type of employees who chose the option. The total column presents the total number of times that option was chosen, and the percentage of times out of all responses it was chosen. As the reader will note, affordability and availability issues top the list for all employees. Table 59: Unsatisfactory Aspects of Accommodation

Unsatisfactory aspects of accommodation

Year Round residents

Seasonal (non-residents) Total

Unaffordable relative to income 120 55.0% 44 50.0% 164 23.9% Lack of availability 112 51.4% 57 64.8% 169 24.6% Insecure tenure, frequent moves 78 35.7% 32 36.4% 110 16.0% Unhealthy, need for major repairs 49 22.5% 27 30.7% 76 11.1% Noise, rowdiness, partying 48 22.0% 18 20.5% 66 9.6% Over-crowding 45 20.6% 28 31.8% 73 10.6% Unsuitability for children 23 10.6% 6 6.8% 29 4.2%

TOTAL RESPONSES 687 100.0%

7.4.4 Employees’ Plans and Housing Preferences Approximately 50% of Tofino resident employees reported that they are highly likely to remain in the community for the foreseeable future along with 23% who said they were somewhat likely; 17% reported that they were either somewhat unlikely or very unlikely to do so. Non-residents reported a relatively high likelihood of returning next year: 63% were very or somewhat likely. For those planning to stay (if resident) or return (if seasonal), they provided insight into their preferences in terms type of housing. This is presented below by resident and non-resident categories in separate tables. While both residents and non-residents seem likely to prefer more traditional housing forms, there are interesting differences in what they find acceptable and unacceptable.

Page 52 of 64

Table 60: Residents Employees’ Preferred Housing Type

Resident Housing Preferences Preferred Acceptable Not acceptable Single family house 213 79.8% 51 18.9% 6 2.2% Duplex or attached townhouse 115 44.8% 134 52.1% 8 3.1% Apartment, condo or suite 125 47.4% 122 46.2% 17 6.4% Staff housing with private facilities 42 17.2% 130 53.3% 72 29.5% Staff housing with shared facilities 9 3.8% 79 33.3% 149 62.9% Mobile home, trailer or R/V 21 8.7% 105 43.4% 116 47.9% Tent, camper, temporary shelter 6 2.5% 23 9.4% 216 88.2% Boat or other floating home 35 14.3 109 44.5% 101 41.2%

Table 61: Non-resident Employees’ Preferred Housing Type

Nom-Resident Housing Preferences Preferred Acceptable Not acceptable

Single family house 54 67.5% 25 31.3% 1 1.3% Duplex or attached townhouse 48 59.3% 33 40.7% 0 0.0% Apartment, condo or suite 55 66.3% 22 26.5% 6 7.2% Staff housing with private facilities 23 29.5% 39 50.0% 16 20.5% Staff housing with shared facilities 10 12.8% 38 48.7% 30 38.5% Mobile home, trailer or R/V 9 11.4% 41 51.9% 29 36.7% Tent, camper, temporary shelter 5 6.3% 18 22.5% 57 71.3% Boat or other floating home 13 16.7% 41 52.6% 24 3.8%

7.4.5 Employees’ Perception Tofino’s Overall Housing Situation

A strong majority of employees reported that they think the housing situation in Tofino is worse this year than last year (total 84%), with over 58% rating it as a lot worse. Table 62: Housing Situation Rating

Situation better/worse

Year Round residents

Seasonal (non-residents) Total

Better 2 0.7% 0 0.0% 2 0.6% About the same 39 13.8% 14 20.0% 53 15.1% Somewhat worse 71 25.2% 19 27.1% 90 25.6% A lot worse 170 60.3% 37 52.9% 207 58.8% TOTAL 282 100.0% 70 100.0% 352 100.0%

Page 53 of 64

Residents concluded that the situation is worse for year round and seasonal employees equally; non-resident seasonal workers felt it was somewhat worse for non-residents. Table 63: Situation Rating – Worst for Whom?

Worse for whom? Year Round residents

Seasonal (non-residents) Total

Year round employees 26 9.1% 3 3.6% 29 7.9% Seasonal employees 70 24.6% 40 48.2% 110 29.9% Both equally 189 66.3% 40 48.2% 229 62.2% TOTAL 285 100.0% 83 100.0% 368 100.0%

Employees also described in their own words what they or those they know have experienced living in unacceptable or unaffordable housing situations; the response was strong and their stories were compelling, with 307 employees taking the time to describe their housing problems along several dimensions. Details of their stories, along with a fuller analysis of all survey responses can be found accompanying report titled “Community Consultations Report – a Companion to the Housing Needs Assessment”.

Page 54 of 64

8. GAPS ALONG THE HOUSING CONTINUUM

8.1 WHAT IS A HOUSING GAP ANALYSIS? For the purposes of this study, a ‘gap analysis’ involves both qualitative and qualitative assessments of where the existing and (where possible or applicable) future housing supplies do not meet the need of residents and non-residents who are working seasonally in Tofino. It is largely based on a calculation of the difference between the existing supply of housing, and what would be affordable to residents based on their incomes. It also involves, to the extent possible, the identification of any particular type of housing along the housing continuum that is needed to meet residents’ needs. The qualitative evidence is based on interviews with community members, as well as the extensive input received through employer, employee, social service provider, and housing provider surveys. This allows for a better understanding of the needs, and of potential solutions, from the perspective of Tofino’s community members. Quantitative evidence was obtained from these same sources, along with data from Statistics Canada, BC Stats, 2014 Regional Survey, Tofino Official Community Plan, CBT rental survey, Multiple Listing Service (MLS), and the Vancouver Island Real Estate Board. This analysis is undertaken by calculating the cost of homeowner and rental housing that would (theoretically and ideally) match Tofino’s household and income profile. This is then compared to the existing housing stock to identify any mismatches that emerge. Housing needs within the community’s more vulnerable populations were considered somewhat differently, using primarily qualitative evidence, as some may have additional needs, such as support services in their housing, to be appropriately and successfully housed. Additionally, quantitative data may be less available, for example, for those without a fixed address are potentially not captured in census or other surveys. Housing need for seasonal (non-resident) employees is likewise treated differently, as they are not captured in census data or the 2014 Regional Survey. Solutions must be different than those for year-round residents, as the practical and financial feasibility of creating accommodation for seasonal use is necessarily different than permanent, year-round housing. Employers’ perspectives and very importantly feedback from employees themselves help inform where there is an unmet need.

Page 55 of 64

8.1.1 How can the Community use a Gap Analysis? It is important to understand that the calculation of a ‘gap’ is not an exact science; rather the purpose is to identify areas of shortage in the housing supply to inform community discussion and develop priorities for action. It is not an action plan, and is not designed to definitively state what and how many units of any given type of housing are needed to meet all needs. In the case of Tofino, evidence clearly points to supply shortages in almost all types of affordable housing along the continuum for low to moderate income earners. As such, a precise calculation of gaps would be less critical, even if it were possible. Any potential solutions that emerge to address these gaps should then be subjected to a demand analysis, that is, tested for acceptance within targeted resident groups to ensure that proposed solutions will in fact meet their needs and preferences. Testing for acceptance within the broader community, especially in any directly affected neighbourhoods should be an important part of the next steps. The Housing Needs Assessment, culminating in a condensed ‘gap analysis’ can be an important tool for the community to understand the importance of taking action on identified needs and priorities selected for action. Part of the testing of potential solutions should also include exploring the financial and practical feasibility of various scenarios and/or combinations of options. While it is often appealing to choose the ‘highest’ priority or need for a first action step, this may not always be possible due to financial, regulatory or other constraints. Action on housing solutions often must be –and should be- driven by opportunity as much as priority of needs. Available land, partnerships or funding opportunities, for example, may be the deciding factor in selecting from a number of priorities. Given Tofino’s very wide range of affordable housing needs, action in any identified area would be tremendously beneficial to the community. This will not only better meet the needs of the particular residents or employees targeted, but will usually free up the housing they are currently using for those who may not otherwise be able to access appropriate housing.

8.2 GAPS ALONG THE CONTINUUM The following section of the report provides a very brief summary of gaps identified in the following:

• Emergency, transitional supportive & assisted housing • Independent social housing • Rent assistance in non-market or market housing • Private market rentals • Homeownership

Page 56 of 64

8.2.1 EMERGENCY, TRANSITIONAL SUPPORTIVE & ASSISTED HOUSING This type of housing is by financial necessity supported by government assistance, generally through both capital costs to construction and operating funding to support residents and enable them to succeed. It may include temporary shelters, either year-round or cold-weather only. This category of housing may also include housing with specialized support for more vulnerable residents such as those with mental health issues, addictions or those fleeting family violence. Ideally it would also include permanent housing with supports.

There are no formal homeless counts undertaken in Tofino, although our research suggests that there is a sizeable population of at-risk individuals who do not ‘choose’ to be homeless. There are no shelters or housing designed, or even particularly suited, for the most vulnerable residents of Tofino. There is likewise no purpose-built housing for seniors who need assisted living or residential care at this time; those with resources may be able to afford to have services delivered, enabling them to remain in their homes, however low income seniors are particularly vulnerable as they have few options. Although not featuring prominently in most of the discussions in Tofino, and while the absolute numbers may be low, those vulnerable residents are in critical need of suitable housing, and many community members drew attention to that fact. Rental rates (shelter only) should target social assistance levels of $375 or less per month. It should be noted that even at $375/month, many residents in the group would then have insufficient resources to meet their other basic needs, such as food, clothing, childcare and transportation. GAPS FOUND FOR VULNERABLE POPULATIONS: homeless shelter, very low rent permanent accommodation, low-moderate rental accommodation with supports, and seniors assisted living and/or residential care.

Page 57 of 64

8.2.2 INDEPENDENT SOCIAL HOUSING - GAPS This category of housing is suitable for families and individuals found in lower income ranges not requiring support services to succeed in their housing. It is supported to some extent by one or more levels of government. Support can range from modest housing grants for construction or operating costs (allowing somewhat lower rents), to significant levels of assistance that permit rents that are affordable to the lowest income individuals and families. At the local level, for example, this assistance can range from regulatory concessions/fee waivers, bonus density and/or land contributions. Provincial capital grants and favourable financing can reduce or remove the requirement for long-term mortgages. Rental subsidies are available to some families and seniors. Federal contributions are generally limited to Seed Funding and Proposal Development Funding, although in some circumstances there may be capital funds available through Federal-Provincial programs. Some of the most successful housing initiatives in this category combine several funding partners.

A fairly wide range of rental rates should be provided to fill in the gaps not already provided by the market. The CBT rental survey demonstrates very little rental supply in the lower, more affordable price ranges, and a significant reduction in availability during the peak tourist season. The greatest need identified is for permanent, year-round rental accommodation that is not interrupted seasonally. Within that, the clearest need is for the lowest rental rates in all units sizes, but particularly 2-3+ bedroom units, which would be suited for households with children. Some rental rates for individuals should target social assistance levels of $375 per month, although there is also an important unmet need for those who can afford up to an estimate $625. Larger family units should target $800 and less for 2-bedroom units, and $1,000 and less for 3-bedroom units as identified as affordable by CBT. Again, it should be noted that even these lower rental rates may still be unaffordable to some individuals and families if taking into consideration their other basic needs. GAP FOUND FOR LOWER INCOME FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS: lower priced permanent, year-round rental accommodation.

Page 58 of 64

8.2.3 RENT ASSISTANCE IN NON-MARKET OR MARKET HOUSING This category of housing is shown as straddling both non-market and market sectors to illustrate that rental assistance can be provided through either government agencies (e.g. BC Housing subsidies for working families or SAFER for seniors), or through employers for either year-round or seasonal staff. In either case, it refers to privately owned market housing. Seasonal workers’ accommodation needs are addressed separately (see p. 61). Market housing is usually characterized by the lack of government assistance, although in some circumstance when targeting a particular priority or affordability gap, some local governments provide regulatory relaxations, density bonus, etc. This housing will then often be subject to housing agreements to ensure long-term affordability.

As mentioned in the social housing section above, a fairly wide range of rental rates should be provided to fill in the gaps not already provided by the market; this particular segment of the continuum targets residents in up to median income brackets and includes individual and families living or working year-round in Tofino. It is assumed that higher rents than achieved in non-market units would be required to attract sufficient private investment in this product, even after considering any employer or government rental assistance that may be required. As with non-market rentals, the greatest need identified is for permanent, year-round rental accommodation that is not interrupted seasonally. Supply is very limited, but availability declines significantly during the summer season. Within the supply, the largest gap appears to be lower priced, larger units, suited for households with children. Ideally, some rents would be as low as $625 per month (after any rental assistance), to be affordable for up to 33% of households. However, rents up to around $1,100 would be affordable to households of median income ($43,800), which represents the approximate income level above which households may start to consider the homeowner market. Many households with higher than median income do choose to remain in the rental market; those with average incomes ($58,900) could afford rents up to approximately $1,500 without rental assistance. GAP FOUND FOR LOWER-MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS: lower-moderate priced permanent, year-round rental accommodation.

Page 59 of 64

8.2.4 PRIVATE MARKET RENTALS This category of housing is privately owned. It could be purpose-built apartments (i.e. not strata), but is often single family homes, condos, or town homes and generally consists of a wide range of sizes, conditions and price ranges. This category on the housing continuum is characterized by the lack of any government assistance of any form from any level. Prices ranges are generally a function of supply and demand, and therefore will command prices that may not be affordable to many in the community.

As identified, a fairly wide range of rental rates should be provided to meet the needs of Tofino residents; this particular segment of the continuum targets residents in median income brackets and higher and includes individual and families living or working year-round in Tofino. Many households in these income ranges could afford to purchase a home, but choose to remain in the rental market for any number of reasons, including likely the limited supply of homeowner housing in the low $400,000s to $500,000 ranges. As with all other rentals, supply is limited. However, the CBT rental survey data suggest that, while there is a decline in availability in the summer season, the higher priced rental units experience much less variability that lower priced/more affordable units. The greatest need identified is for permanent, year-round rental accommodation that is not interrupted seasonally. Within that, as with lower priced rentals, the largest gap appears to be larger units, suited for households with children. Ideally, rents for larger units would start under $1,200 (current available average 2-bedroom) and under $1,400 (3-bedroom), but it is important that households of all incomes to be able to choose rental housing. As such up to $1,800 would serve the next 25% or so of households according to income. GAP FOUND FOR PRIVATE MARKET RENTALS: lower-moderate priced permanent, year-round rental accommodation.

Page 60 of 64

8.2.5 HOMEOWNERSHIP Homeowner housing, regardless of form (e. g. single family, condo) or price, is generally only available on the private market, illustrated at the far right of the housing continuum. This housing is suited for all household types and sizes, generally constrained only (or primarily) by sufficient income to purchase and finance. Market homeownership is characterized by the lack of any government assistance, although in some circumstance some local governments can provide regulator relaxations if developers are including affordable housing (rental or entry-level homeowner) as part of their development proposals.

Homeownership is out of reach for a large segment of Tofino’s population, with virtually no homes currently available for sale that are affordable to over half of households (median income household earning $43,800 can comfortably afford approximately $245,000). Even average income earners ($58,900) have very few options (only 6 current listings for homes under $400,000). Higher income residents and those already in the market have options and are probably well served by the existing supply. The greatest homeownership need identified is for entry-level housing, affordable to first-time buyers and moderate income households. With Tofino’s relatively small average household size (2.2 people), and the large number of single person households (est. up to 1/3 of population), smaller units may serve this market well. Recognizing that construction costs are a serious limiting factor, very small or micro-condos may be suited for first time buyers, and well accepted by the younger population, many of whom do not have children. To match the household income profile of the community, ideally up to 1/3 of any new supply would target prices in the low $400,000s, including to the extent possible some supply in the low $300,000s; ideally some smaller units in the mid-upper $200,000s would also be included. GAP FOUND FOR MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS: homeownership units at the low-end of the market.

Page 61 of 64

8.2.6 NON-RESIDENT (SEASONAL EMPLOYEE) ACCOMMODATION Because of the significant influx of seasonal workers for just the summer months in Tofino, the needs for non-resident seasonal worker accommodation is addressed separately. It is reported outside the framework of the continuum of housing on the previous pages, as solutions for those in Tofino for a (say) 3-month stay different substantially from those for year-round residents. However, they too have affordability and availability challenges; as reported earlier, while affordability was identified as a difficulty by 50% of the seasonal employees, 64.8% ranked ‘lack of availability’ as problematic. Employers report that the strong majority of their non-resident seasonal workers are under 30 years of age (87.4%), and are single with no children (80.3%); these factors suggest smaller accommodation would be suitable and sharing may be a viable option for many. Seasonal employees report lower wages than do year-round employees, with 35% reporting incomes under $1,500 and another 35% reporting incomes between $1,500-$2,000. This suggests the need for a substantial supply of short-term accommodation. In order to meet the reported income profile of non-resident seasonal employees, the greatest need identified for seasonal housing would be individual units or those that could be shared for under $450/month per person, with potentially a similar need for those in the $450-$600/month range.

It was noted that while most seasonal employees many not prefer housing with shared facilities, this was far more acceptable to them than to permanent resident employees. The biggest challenge they find is one of availability.

GAP FOUND FOR SEASONAL (NON-RESIDENT EMPLOYEES): affordable rental accommodation with appropriate facilities.

Page 62 of 64

9. NEXT STEPS

9.1 HOW TO USE THIS REPORT This Housing Needs Assessment (HNA) is an important first step to developing a Housing Strategy and Action Plan to be used as a roadmap for creating much needed new housing in Tofino. The HNA provides an overview, through objective assessment, of the housing situation in Tofino, to give the District and community members a better understanding of the current need and suggested priorities. Housing needs change over time, in response to changes in demographics, new housing supply, and various economic and social conditions. This HNA can be used as a baseline, and if updated periodically over the years, can help ensure that housing strategy and action plans are developed, and that District policies and any new projects continue to meet the community’s needs and priorities. It can also be of great benefit to affordable housing providers in targeting their development proposals to areas of greatest priority and need. Finally the HNA is an important tool in objectively demonstrating need to potential funding partners. Community engagement is critical to developing an action plan that will be embraced by Tofino’s residents. Many members of the community provided their input to this assessment, and the results should be shared widely with the community at large. This step is important so that the community can gain an appreciation of the extent of the problem, and engage with the decisions that will be required to achieve solutions. This is true both on a macro level, such as the creation of District policies or regulations to support the development of more affordable housing, or the dedication of resources to solutions. It is also important, on a project-by-project level; big or small, affordable housing projects need community and neighbourhood support to succeed. After communicating results to the community and obtaining feedback, the next step should be to develop a Housing Strategy or Action Plan.

Page 63 of 64

9.2 ACTION PLANNING: DEVELOPING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGY In this climate of much reduced traditional senior government funding for affordable housing development, local governments and community groups are increasingly collaborating and finding creative partnership solutions. The District of Tofino could play an effective role by developing an affordable housing strategy with specific housing goals, utilizing their land use tools, and playing a leadership role in encouraging other stakeholders to promote development. Whether a focused or a comprehensive affordable housing strategy, they should be based on the need as established and monitored on an ongoing basis through periodic reviews of the Housing Needs Assessment. Public participation and consultation are key throughout the process to ensure that action plans meet the needs and priorities of the community. Focused strategies are often appropriate in smaller communities where local government places attention on a single important issue that requires urgent and immediate attention. This type of strategy tends to also respond particularly well to a specific housing need or problem that can be addressed in a relatively short period of time. Comprehensive strategies attempt to deal with the full range of housing needs, hence the merit of addressing the full housing continuum through this approach. They also address local housing issues, but the aim is to employ systematic frameworks of analysis, implementation, and monitoring of the goals and achievements. While they can (and likely will) take advantage of any specific senior government funding programs that arise periodically, their goal is to address the full range of affordability issues facing the community. Successful implementation of any strategy must plan for it to be an ongoing process, with both short and long term goals that are prioritized and scheduled. Partnerships with a wide range of stakeholders are very important, and the District of Tofino can play a key role in encouraging and facilitating these relationships. A formal process for monitoring outcomes should be developed, to allow for changes or adjustments as required. There are some limited funding opportunities available to assist with the development and implementation of this strategy. TAKING ACTION! Community feedback was clear on the desire for action, with a strong interest in finding solutions. Many stakeholders expressed a willingness to participate at some level in the process. This interest should be nurtured and opportunities for participation be developed as a key part of any solution. “Community Consultations Report – a Companion to the Housing Needs Assessment” includes details of solutions identified during consultations. The District will be provided with a list of community members who wish to be kept informed or become involved in creating solutions.

Page 64 of 64

10. LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Comparable Population Growth Table 2: Tofino Population Growth Table 3: Tofino Official Community Plan Population Projections Table 4: Gender Proportions – 2011 Census Table 5: Employee Gender – Employer Survey Table 6: Employee Gender – Employee Survey Table 7: Age Profile Table 8: Median Age by Gender (2011 Census) Table 9: Percentage of Children (2011 Census) Table 10: Employee Age Distribution (Employer Survey) Table 11: Age Distribution (Employee Survey) Table 12: Seniors Population (Tofino, ACRD, BC) Table 13: Seniors’ Gender Proportions Table 14: Household Size and Composition Table 15: Employee Family Status (Employer Reported) Table 16: Employee Family Status (Employee Reported) Table 17: Population Mobility (2014 Regional Survey) Table 18: Employee Populations Table 19: Household Income Table 20: One-Person Household Income Table 21: Median Employee Income (Employee Reported) Table 22: Monthly Employee Income (Employer Reported) Table 23: Housing by Structure Type Table 24: Changes in Housing Stock 2001-2011 Table 25: Dwellings Needed for Population Growth 2001-2011 Table 26: Dwelling Condition (Census 2006) Table 27: Dwelling Condition (2015 Regional Survey) Table 28: Dwelling Occupation by Usual (Permanent)/Temporary Residents Table 29: Household Tenure (Rental/Ownership) Table 30: Household Sizes Table 31: MLS listings - Single Family, Condos and Town Homes Available May 2015 Table 32: Vancouver Island Real Estate Board Sales Table 33: Rental Availability, Cost and Income Required (2012-2014) Table 34: Rental Unit Seasonal Availability (2012-2014)

Page 65 of 64

Table 35: Employee Accommodation Table 36: Affordability Targets Table 37: Ideal Rental and Purchase Prices Table 38: Rental Housing Availability Table 39: Reported Rents/Ideal Rental Supply Table 40: Resident Employees’ Rental Affordability Table 41: Seasonal Employees’ Rental Affordability Table 42: Regional Survey Rental Rates Compared to Ideal Supply Table 43: MLS Listings (May-2015) Compared to Ideal Supply Table 44: Residents’ Employee Homeowner Affordability Table 45: ‘Age Friendly’ Recommended Actions Table 46: Shelter Allowance Rates Table 47: Core Need and Risk of Homelessness (2006 Census) Table 48: Survey Respondent Employment Status Table 49: Employees by Month and % of July Peak Table 50: Employees Inadequately Housed Table 51: Employers Considering Future Provision of Employee Housing Table 52: Employer Interest in Off-site Employee Housing Table 53: Off-site Employee Housing Units Needed Table 54: Employee Employment Status Table 55: Employee Housing Tenure Table 56: Employee Accommodation Types Table 57: Employer Housing Assistance Table 58: Levels of Satisfaction with Housing Table 59: Unsatisfactory Aspects of Accommodation Table 60: Resident Employees’ Preferred Housing Type Table 61: Non-resident Employees’ Preferred Housing Type Table 62: Housing Situation Rating Table 63: Situation Rating – Worst for Whom? Figure 1: The Housing Continuum

Page 66 of 64

11. APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Listing of all housing policies and references in Tofino’s OCP (produced by District Staff)

Appendix 2: Review of reports on affordable housing needs and options, District of Tofino

2002-2010

Page 67 of 64

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � ! " � # $ � % � & � " � ' � � � � � � � � � ( � � � � ) * � + + � � � ! , + � + - � � � ( � � ! � � � � ( � . � + � � ! �� � � ' � � � � ( / � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ! � ( - � . � % 01 � � � � � �2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < 8 = = > 5 6 ; ? 3 9 @A 7 5 B 5 < : 8 = = 5 7 C 8 D E : > 5 6 ; ? 3 9 = 5 7 8 E E 7 : ; ? C : 3 < ; @F E E 5 G = 5 7 ; B 8 E E : 7 C G : E E ? 3 9 ; @A 7 5 B 5 < : E 5 G 7 ? ; : 4 E 6 ; < : 7 > 5 6 ; ? 3 9 G ? < > 9 7 : : 3 ; H 8 4 : @A 7 5 B 5 < : 8 I 8 7 ? : < J 5 = ; ? K : ; 8 3 C C : ; ? 9 3 ; @F C C 7 : ; ; ; > 5 7 < < : 7 B < 5 6 7 ? ; < 7 : 3 < 8 E ; L� � � � � M N � � ! O � ! � � � � P � . � ! � � � �·

$ � � � � ( � � � � � ' ' � ! � � � ! � � � � � Q � � � ! � � � � ( � - . � " � � � � � � � � � ! � � ! � / � � R� � � � � S T * � � � + � * U � � � � �·

� " � � � ! ! � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � . � ! � / � . , � � � % ' � � � � � � . � � � ( ! " � ' � � � � * � � � � " � � "% � ! � ! � - . � ) - � ( � * & � � ( � � � � � ! � / � / � � � ! � ! � � � * � / � � � ! � * ! � ! " � � + � � � ! � �( � / � . � ' � - . � . � � ( � � ( � � * � � � � � . � � ( * � � ! � V � " � � � � ! � � ! � � � � . � � � � * � � � � � ( � / � . � ' + � � !* � � ! � V N � ! � � . � � ( * � � ! � % � . . / � , . � & � . , * � � ! � � � � ! � � � � ) � � � . ! � � � ! � / � � � + � � � � � � ( � � ! � � . ( � / � . � ' + � � ! ) � � * . � ( � � � + � W � ( � � � X � � � ( � � ! � � . � / � � ! � � . Y ) � � � � ( Z� � � � ! � ( ! � % � " � � � � � � � ( * . � � ! � " � � � � � � % � . . � � � ( ! � - � � W ' . � � ( V� � � � � [ � " , � � * � . � � / � . � ' + � � ! � � � � � �·

1 � � � � � � � � � � ( � - � . � ! , � � � * " � . . � � � � � � + � � , � � � � � � � � � ( � � ! � ) ' � ! � * � . � . , ! " � � �� � ! � � � ! � ( � � . � � � Z ! � + . � � � � � � � * * � + + � ( � ! � � � � � � � � � � � � . � + ' . � , + � � ! V \ ] ^ _ ` ] a bc ] d b _ ` e f ] b g b h i j b _ e ` _ ^ _ f h ` g k l c _ e c j i g c h ` g c j i j e _ ] ` a b h m j i h e j h ` n c _ e c j i ! " � � ! " �' � / � � * � � . � / � � � � V 1 � � � � " � . ( � � * � + � � � � � � � � � � � � . � � " ! . , . � � � ! " � � ! " � ' � / � � * � � .� / � � � � V o . ! � � � ! � / � " � � � � � � � ' ! � � � � % � . . � � � ( ! � - � � W ' . � � ( V·

� � � � � ! " � ' � � ! � � , � � � ) � � � � * � � � � ( � � + - � � � � � + � Z ( � ! � * " � ( � � ( � % " � � � � � � � ! �" � / � - � � � * � � � ! � * ! � ( V N � ! � � ( � / � . � ' + � � ! % � . . � � � ( ! � � ( ( � � � ! " � * � � ! � � � � (' � / � � � � � � � + � W � ( " � � � � � � � ! � * & ! � � � � � � ! " � ! � % � ( � � � � � � � " � � � � " � . ( � " � / �� * * � � � ! � " � � � � � � V·

1 � � � � � � � � � � ( � - � . � ! , � � � / � , � � � � � � � * � � ! � � * � � . � � � � � � � � � � � � � V $ � � � ! . , ) � � � � � � " � �" � � " " � � � � � � * � � ! � ) � " � ! � � � � � , � � Z � � � ( � � ! � . " � � � � � � ) � � ( � " � ! � � � � �� * * � + + � ( � ! � � � � � � � � � � � � . � + ' . � , � � � V p � + � / � � � ! � � � � ( � " � ! Z ! � + � � � ( � � ! � . � / �� � ! " � � � � � ! � � � � � � q � � � r � � * " � � � ! " � � / � " � * . � � V o * � + ' � " � � � � / � " � � � � � �� ! � ! � � , % � . . - � � q � � � ( V� � � � M � $ � � ! � W ! � ! � ! � + � � !

APPENDIX 1Listing of all housing policies and references in Tofino’s OCP

s t u v u w x u y u z { | { t x } w ~ u z � u � � x y � z u t v � �s { � } � � s � { y u t � { y x � { w x u y� � } � } � w x u y � � x � w } � { � u | } x y � � � � } � w { w } v } y w � { y � v { � � } � x � y { w x u y � z u t w � } { t } { � u | } t } � � ~w � } s � { y t } � � } � w x y � �{ � � � } { � � t u � x v { w } � u � { w x u y � { v u � y w � w ~ � } { y � � } y � x w ~ u z t } � x � } y w x { � � } | } � u � v } y w t } � � x t } �w u v } } w { y w x � x � { w } � � u � � x y � y } } � � u | } t { y � { y � � � ~ } { t � } t x u � � � } � w x u y � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � { y � � { � � � � { y � � � } � �s { � } � � � � x � x y � s t x y � x � � } �� � �   ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ ¦ © ª « ¨ ¥ ¬ ª ­ ® £ ¯ ° £ ¤ ¬ ª ¡ § ­ ® ± ¨ ¬ ­ ° ¦ ­ ¦ © © ¥ ¨ ¬ ¬ ² ³ ³ ´ µ ¶ ² · ¸ ¹ ¸ º » ¼½ ¾ ¿ À Á ¾ Â Ã Ä Â Å À  Á Æ Â Ç Ç Â È Ç ¾ Á È É Ê ¾ Ë Ç À Á Ì Ç Ê ¾ Å Í È Ì Â Ç È Á Î Ï Â È Å Ð Å ¾ Ë Á Î Æ Ê È É É Â Á Ì Â Ç Í ¾ Ê ¾ Ë Ç À Á ÌÈ ¿ ¿ ¾ Å Î È Ñ À É À Í Ï Ò ½ Ê À Ç Ä É È Æ Â Ç Ä Å Â Ç Ç Ë Å Â ¾ Á Å Â Ç À Î Â Á Í Ç È Á Î Â Ó Ä É ¾ Ï Â Å Ç È É À Ô Â Ò ½ Ê Â Æ ¾ Ç Í ¾ ¿ Ê ¾ Ë Ç À Á ÌÀ Ç Ê À Ì Ê À Á ½ ¾ ¿ À Á ¾ Õ Â Ç Ä Â Æ À È É É Ï À Á Æ ¾ Ó Ä È Å À Ç ¾ Á Í ¾ É ¾ Æ È É Ç È É È Å À Â Ç Ò Ö É À Ó À Í Â Î É È Á Î Ñ È Ç Â Õ Í Ê Â Ê À Ì ÊÆ ¾ Ç Í ¾ ¿ Î Â × Â É ¾ Ä Ó Â Á Í Õ È Á Î Î Â Ó È Á Î ¿ ¾ Å Í ¾ Ë Å À Ç Í È Á Î Å Â Ç ¾ Å Í Ç Í È ¿ ¿ È Æ Æ ¾ Ó Ó ¾ Î È Í À ¾ Á Ç Õ È É ÉÆ ¾ Á Í Å À Ñ Ë Í Â Í ¾ Í Ê Â Ê À Ì Ê Æ ¾ Ç Í ¾ ¿ Å Â Á Í À Á Ì È Á Î Ñ Ë Ï À Á Ì Ê ¾ Ë Ç À Á Ì À Á ½ ¾ ¿ À Á ¾ Ò Ø ¾ Ë Ç À Á Ì È × È À É È Ñ À É À Í Ï ÕÍ Ï Ä Â Õ É ¾ Æ È Í À ¾ Á È Á Î È ¿ ¿ ¾ Å Î È Ñ À É À Í Ï Ù À É É Á Â Â Î Í ¾ Ñ Â È Î Î Å Â Ç Ç Â Î À Á È Ù È Ï Í Ê È Í Â Á Æ ¾ Ë Å È Ì Â ÇÈ Æ Æ Â Ä Í È Ñ É Â Õ Ç Ë À Í È Ñ É Â È Á Î È ¿ ¿ ¾ Å Î È Ñ É Â Ê ¾ Ë Ç À Á Ì ¿ ¾ Å È × È Å À Â Í Ï È Ì Â Ç Õ À Á Æ ¾ Ó Â Ç È Á Î É À ¿ Â Ç Í Ï É Â Ç ÕÀ Á Æ É Ë Î À Á Ì É ¾ Á Ì Ð Í Â Å Ó È Á Î Ç Â È Ç ¾ Á È É Æ ¾ Ó Ó Ë Á À Í Ï Ó Â Ó Ñ Â Å Ç Ò ½ Ê Â È × È À É È Ñ À É À Í Ï ¾ ¿ È Î À × Â Å Ç À Í ÏÚ Û Ü Ú Ý Þ ß à á â ã ä å Þ â Ü æ â æ ç ç è å Þ Þ æ Û Û Ú è ç æ é ß ê ß â ã ë ß ê ê é å ß ì ä Ú è â æ à â â Ú ß ì ä è Ú í ß à á è å Þ ß ç å à â Þ îï Ë È É À Í Ï ¾ ¿ É À ¿  Òð È Ì Â ñ ò ó Å ¾ Ù Í Ê ô È Á È Ì Â Ó Â Á Í õ Ñ ö Â Æ Í À × Â÷ ÷ Ò ð Å ¾ Ó ¾ Í Â Å Â Ç À Î Â Á Í À È É Î Â × Â É ¾ Ä Ó Â Á Í Í Ê È Í Ä Å ¾ × À Î Â Ç È Ó À à ¾ ¿ Ê ¾ Ë Ç À Á Ì Î Â Á Ç À Í À Â Ç È Á ÎÍ Ï Ä Â Ç Ù À Í Ê È Á È × Â Å È Ì Â Á Â Í Î Â Á Ç À Í Ï ¿ ¾ Å Á Â Ù Å Â Ç À Î Â Á Í À È É Î Â × Â É ¾ Ä Ó Â Á Í È Í ò ø Ë Á À Í Ç Ä Â ÅÊ Â Æ Í È Å Â ù ú Ë Á À Í Ç Ä Â Å È Æ Å Â û À Á ü É È Ï ¾ ï Ë ¾ Í ý À  ٠þ Ç Í È Í Â Ç ÿ  À Ì Ê Ñ ¾ Ë Å Ê ¾ ¾ Î Õ ô È Æ �  Á � À Âÿ  À Ì Ê Ñ ¾ Ë Å Ê ¾ ¾ Î È Á Î ü Ê Â Ç Í Â Å Ó È Á � Â È Æ Ê ÿ  À Ì Ê Ñ ¾ Ë Å Ê ¾ ¾ Î Òð È Ì Â ñ ñ ó Å ¾ Ù Í Ê ô È Á È Ì Â Ó Â Á Í ð ¾ É À Æ À  Ç÷ ò Ò � Á Í À É Î Â Ó È Á Î ¿ ¾ Å È ¿ ¿ ¾ Å Î È Ñ É Â Ê ¾ Ë Ç À Á Ì À Ç È Î Î Å Â Ç Ç Â Î Õ ¿ Ë Í Ë Å Â � Â Ç Í À Á È Í À ¾ Á � Â Ç ¾ Å Í Ç Ç Ê È É ÉÄ Å ¾ × À Î Â ¿ ¾ Å Â Ó Ä É ¾ Ï Â Â Ê ¾ Ë Ç À Á Ì Ñ Ï Ù ¾ Å Ô À Á Ì Ù À Í Ê Í Ê Â � À Ç Í Å À Æ Í ¾ ¿ ½ ¾ ¿ À Á ¾ Í ¾ À Î Â Á Í À ¿ ÏÍ Ê Â Ù È Ï Ç È Á Î Ó Â È Á Ç ¾ ¿ Ä Å ¾ × À Î À Á Ì Ç Ë Æ Ê È Æ Æ ¾ Ó Ó ¾ Î È Í À ¾ Á Õ Ç Ë Æ Ê È Ç ¾ Á Ð Ç À Í Â Â Ó Ä É ¾ Ï Â ÂÈ Æ Æ ¾ Ó Ó ¾ Î È Í À ¾ Á Õ ¾ Å Ñ Ï Æ ¾ Á Í Å À Ñ Ë Í À Á Ì Í ¾ È Á Â Ó Ä É ¾ Ï Â Â Ê ¾ Ë Ç À Á Ì ¿ Ë Á Î Ò÷ � Ò ½ Ê Â � À Ç Í Å À Æ Í Ù À É É Ù ¾ Å Ô Ù À Í Ê Í Ê Â Ñ Ë Ç À Á Â Ç Ç Ç Â Æ Í ¾ Å Í ¾ Â Ã Ä É ¾ Å Â Í Ê ÂÄ ¾ Í Â Á Í À È É ¾ ¿ ¿ Ë Í Ë Å Â Á ¾ Á Ð Í ¾ Ë Å À Ç Ó Æ ¾ Ó Ó Â Å Æ À È É Î Â × Â É ¾ Ä Â Å ÇÄ Å ¾ × À Î À Á Ì Â Ó Ä É ¾ Ï Â Â Ê ¾ Ë Ç À Á Ì Õ Ç Ë Æ Ê È Ç ¾ Á Ð Ç À Í Â ¾ Å ¾ ¿ ¿ Ç À Í ÂÂ Ó Ä É ¾ Ï Â Â È Æ Æ ¾ Ó Ó ¾ Î È Í À ¾ Á Õ ¾ Å À Á Í Ê Â ¿ ¾ Å Ó ¾ ¿ ÈÆ ¾ Á Í Å À Ñ Ë Í À ¾ Á Í ¾ È Á Â Ó Ä É ¾ Ï Â Â Ê ¾ Ë Ç À Á Ì ¿ Ë Á Î Òð È Ì Â ñ � ü ¾ Ó Ó Ë Á À Í Ï � Â Ç À Ì Á È Á Î É È Á Î Ë Ç Â Ì ¾ È É Ç� Ò ½ ¾ Ó È À Á Í È À Á È Á Î À Ó Ä Å ¾ × Â À Á Í Â Å Æ ¾ Á Á Â Æ Í Â Î Â Á × À Å ¾ Á Ó Â Á Í È É ¿ Â È Í Ë Å Â Ç Ù Ê À É Â Î Â × Â É ¾ Ä À Á ÌÈ ¿ ¿ ¾ Å Î È Ñ É Â Ê ¾ Ë Ç À Á Ì Ò

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � ! " # � � � " � � � � " � � � � � � � � � � $ % # � � � � � � # � � � � � & " � � � � � � & � # � � � � � � % � � � " � # � & & � # � � � � & � # � � � # � � � � & # � � � � � � � � ' ' ( � � � � # � � � % % � # � � � � � � � � & � # � � � � � � � � � � " � � � � � � � # � � � � � � � � �� � � # � " � � � � � � ) " � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ) � � � � � � � " # � � � # � � * + , * ' � � � � " � � � # " � � � � " # � � � # % � � � � � � �- � � � � � � % � � � � � � � " � � � � � " � � � # " � � � � � � � � � � & � � � � � � � � � � - ' - ' # � � � � � � # � � � � �� � � � � � � # � " � & � � � � ) � � � � " # � � � # $ � � � � � � � � & � � " � � � � � � � � � & � " � & � � � � ) � � � � � � � .· / 0 1 2 3 0 4 2 5 6 2 1 7 7 8 9 7 7 : ; < = 7 7 > ; 1 0 = ? < 2 0 @ 0 ? = 0 < A ; B 7 C D � � E � � � " � � � # " � � � � � � � � # � � �E � � � � � � F � � � � � & G + + � H � # � � � � # � � I G $ J K � � H � # � & � � � L � � � � � # � � � � � � � � � � �- ' - - � M· N � � F � & # � � � � � � � � � � � � � $ � � � � � � � � � � " � % # � � � � � � � � & # � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � # # � � � � � � � " �E � � � " � � � # " � � � � � � � � # � � � E � � � $ � # � � � � , � # � � � � � � � � ) � " � � � � � ) � � " � � � � � � � � �# � � � � � � � � ) � � � ' * � � � � � % � # " � � � # � � � - � � � � � � % � # " � � � # � I � + O � * � � � � � % � # � # � L M� � � % � � " � � � � � � � � # � � � � ' + � � � � � % � # " � � � # � I K � � � � � % � # � # � L $ � � � � � � " � �" � � � � � � # � � � � � � � � ) � � � � ' � � � � � % � # " � � � # � � � � * � � � � � % � # " � � � # � I K , J � � � � �% � # � # � L ) � � " � " � � � � # � � � � � � � � � � � � � & ' + � � � � � % � # " � � � # � I K � � � � � % � # � # � L M· / 0 1 2 3 0 4 2 5 6 2 1 7 7 P Q 1 6 R 2 S ? 3 T U B 6 3 2 0 6 < V 9 7 W 7 9 7 W W 9 7 W X 9 7 W 8 Q ? ; 1 2 ? 3 T U B 6 3 2 0 6 < V ; 1 0 = ? < 2 0 @ 0 ? =0 < A ; B 7 C Y � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � % � � � � $ % # � & � # � � � � � � " � & � # � � & � � � � � � # � � � � � � % � � � � $) � � " � � � " � Y � # � � � � � � � � � � � � & � � � # � � � � � � � � � � � � � & ' * � � � � � % � # " � � � # � I � � � � �% � # � # � L ) � � " � � � � � � � � & � � � � � % � # " � � � # � I � � � � � % � # � # � L � � � F � � � � � & *� � � � � % � # " � � � # � I ' � � � � � % � # � # � L M· Z � � " � � � � � � � # � � � � � � ) � � " � � & & � # � � � ) � � � Y � # � Y � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � " � � � � � � � # � �� � � � � � � � � ) � � � ! � � # � � � � � � � � � � � � � N # � � � � � � " � � � � � � � # � � � � � � · A ; 4 [ ? < \ 0 ? ] ? 0 ^ S _ 6 R 3 S 6 6 = ; 1 0 = ? < 2 0 @ 0 ? = 0 < A ; B 7 C D � � E � � � " � � � # " � � � � � � � � # � � �E � � � � � � F � � � � � & G + + � H � # � � � � # � � I G $ J K � � H � # � & � � � L � � � � � # � � � � � � � � � � �- ' - - � M· N � � F � & # � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � " � % # � � � � � � � � & # � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � # # � � � � � � � " �E � � � " � � � # " � � � � � � � � # � � � E � � � $ � # � � � � , � # � � � � � � � � ) � " � � � � � ) � � " � � � � � � � � �# � � � � � � � � ) � � � ' * � � � � � % � # " � � � # � � � - + � � � � � % � # " � � � # � I � + O � ' � � � � � % � # � # � L $� � � % � � " � � � � � � � � # � � � � ' + � � � � � % � # " � � � # � I K � � � � � % � # � # � L $ � � � � " � � " � � � � � �# � � � � � � � � ) � � � G � � � � � % � # " � � � # � � � � ' � � � � � % � # " � � � # � I - J O K � � � � � % � # � # � L) � � " � " � � � � # � � � � # � � � � � � � � � � � � � & ' + � � � � � % � # " � � � # � I K � � � � � % � # � # � L M· ` � & & � # � � � � � � & � � Y � � a � � " ) � M·

! # � � � � � � � � � � � � b � c � � d � � ` � � " Y � � � � a � � � � � � � � # � � � · e 6 3 2 S ? f S ; 3 B g 6 ; = h 3 ? ; 9 0 < 4 T R = 0 < ^ / 0 1 2 3 0 4 2 5 6 2 7 W i ; < = 7 W j ; 1 0 = ? < 2 0 @ 0 ? = 0 < A ; B 7 Cb � F � � � � � $ � � � � � � � � � " � � " � � � " � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � # � � � # � " % # k � � � � � � # � � � Z � �� ' G � � � � � % � � � � � � � � � � � � ) � � " # � � � � � � � � � & � # � � � F % � � � � � & � � � # � � � � � � � � � � � � � % � � � % � � � � � � � � � � � � � � & & � # � � � � ` # � ) � � � � � � � � M·

! # � � � � � � � � � � � � ) � � % � � # � � # � � � � � � � � � � � # � � � Z � � � ' K ) � � " � � � � � � � � � � % � � � � � # � � � � � � � � � a � � � � � � � � # � � �

· l m n o n p q r s r s t u s v n w n x y z n v z y o { r y s y | } m n ~ { n o p q s � n q � m � n r t m � y u o m y y v q ~r v n s { r | r n v r s � q z � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � �   ¡ ¢ � � � � � � � � � � £ � � � � � � � � � � � � � ¤ � � � � ¥ ¦ § ¨ § ¦ § ¦ § © ª· « � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ¬ � � ­ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ­ � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ® � � � � � � � � � � ¯ � � � � � � � ¯ � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � ¯ � � � ¨ ° � � � � � ¬ � � � � � � � � � � � � ¦ � � � � � � ¬ � � � � � � � � � � © ± © ¨ � � � � � ¬ � � � � � � £ �� � � ¬ � � � � � � � � � � � ­ � � � � � � � ¨ � � � � � � ¬ � � � � � � � � � � ¡ � � � � � ¬ � � � � � � £ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � ¯ � � � � � � � � � ¬ � � � � � � � � � � � � © ¨ � � � � � ¬ � � � � � � � � � � ¦ §   ± ² § ¡ � � � � � ¬ � � � � � � £¯ � � � � � � � ­ � � � � � � ­ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ¥ � � ¨ � � � � � � ¬ � � � � � � � � � � ¡ � � � � � ¬ � � � � � � £ ª¤ � � � ° ¦ ³ � � � � ¬ � � � � � � �� § � � � ¯ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ¬ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ´ � � µ � � ¶ � � ³ � � � � « � � � � � � � � � � � � � ­ � � � � �� � � � � � � � � ¥ � � ¨ § ° � � � � � ¬ � � � � � � � � � � © � � � � ¬ � � � � � � £ ¯ � � � � � � � � � � � � � © � � � � ¬ � � � � � � � � � � ©� � � � ¬ � � ¨ § ° � � � � � £ � � � � � � � � � � � � � ° � � � � � ¬ � � � � � � � � � � © � � � � ¬ � � § ° � � � � � £ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � ­ � � � ¬ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ¶ � � ­ � � � � � � � ¬ � � � � � � � ´ � � µ � � ¶ � �· � � � � ³ � � � � � � � � � � � ¥ � � � � � � � � � ­ � � � ¬ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ´ � � µ � � ¶ � � · � � � �³ � � � � « � � � §¤ � � � ° ° ¸ � � � � � � ¤ � � � � � � �© § ¹ � � º � � � � � � � � � � � � ¬ � � � � � � � � � ¬ � � ­ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ¶ � � �� � � � � � � � ­ � � � � � ¥ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � »¼ ½ ¾ ¿ À Á Â Ã Ä Å ¾ Â Æ Ç È Å Æ Æ Ç È Â Å É Á Ã Ê Ç Ë Ì À ¾ Í À Ì Å Â Â È Ã Ì Ì Ã Â Î Å È Ã Ï Ë À È Ã Ä Ã ¾ ¿ ¿ Ê Å ¿ Æ Ë ¿ Ë È Ãº � � � � � � � � � � ³ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ¬ � � ­ � � � � � ¬ � � ¥ � � � � � � � � � ª¼ Ð Ñ È Ç Ñ Ç Ì Å Á ¿ Ê Å ¿ ¾ Ç ¾ ® � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ­ � � � ¬ � � � � � � ¬ � � � � ¬ � � � � � � � � � �¬ � � ­ � � � � � ¬ � � ¥ � � � � � � � � � ª¼ Ò Ã Ï Ë À È Ã Ä Ã ¾ ¿ Æ Ç È Ä À Ó Ã Â ® � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ­ � � � � � � � � � � � � Ô � � � � � � £ � � ­ � � � ¬ � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ª¼ Ð Á Á Ç Õ Å ¿ À Ç ¾ Ç Æ Â Ã ¾ Ì À ¿ Ö É Ç ¾ Ë Ì À ¾ Í Æ Ç È Â Ã × Ã Á Ç Ñ Ä Ã � � ¯ � � � � � � � � Ø � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �· � � � � � � ¥ � � � � � � � � � � � � � ¬ � � ­ � � � � � � ® � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � º � � � � � � � ¸ � � � � � � Ù � � � � � � � � � ¬ � � ¬ � � � � � ¬ � � ­ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � §¨ § ¹ � � º � � � � � � � ¯ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ­ � � � ¬ � � � � � � � � � � � � ® � � � � � � � � � � ¯ � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � ¬ � � � � � � � � � � � ¬ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ¥ � � ­ � � � ¬ � � � � ¯ � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ­ � � � ¬ � � � � � � � � � � � ® � � � � � ¥ � � � � � � � � ¯ � � Ú ® � ¬ � ¬ � � � � � � � � � � � Ú � §¦ § Ù � � � � � � � � � � � ¥ � � ¬ � � � � � � � � ¯ � � � � � � � � ¯ � � � � ¯ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ¬ � � � � � �¯ � � � � � � ¬ � � ­ � � � � §² § Û � ­ � ® ¯ � � Ú � � � � � � � � � ¥ � � ¬ � � � � � � � � � � � � � Ø � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � ¯ � � � � � � � � � � � »¼ Ð Â Ü Å Õ Ã ¾ ¿ Ã Ó À Ì ¿ À ¾ Í Ç È Ñ È Ç Ñ Ç Ì Ã Â Â Ã × Ã Á Ç Ñ Ä Ã ¾ ¿ À Ì Õ Ç Ä Ñ Å ¿ À É Á Ã Ý À ¿ Ê ¿ Ê Ã Ñ È Ç Ñ Ç Ì Ã Â� � � � ª¼ Þ Ê Ã Ì À ¿ Ã Ê Å Ì Â À È Ã Õ ¿ Å Õ Õ Ã Ì Ì ¿ Ç Å ß Ç Á Á Ã Õ ¿ Ç È Ç � « � � � � � � � ³ � � � ª¼ Þ Ê Ã Ñ È Ç Ñ Ç Ì Ã Â Ë Ì Ã Ì Ì Ë Ñ Ñ Ç È ¿ ¿ Ê Ã Í Ç Å Á Ì Ç Æ ¿ Ê À Ì à Á Å ¾ á

â ã ä å æ ç è é ê ë ì í ë î ç ï í ð ë ñ ò è ï í ó ì ô ê ë õ ë ç è æ å ë ì ð ð ò ö ð æ ñ ë í ë ñ õ ë í ó å æ è ñ ð ö ì ðë ì õ ó ñ è ì å ë ì ð ö ç ÷ ë ö ð ï ñ ë í ö í ó ì ð ë ñ î è ì ì ë î ð ë ê ô ñ ë ë ì í æ ö î ë í ãø ã ù è ì í ó ê ë ñ î è è æ ë ñ ö ð ó õ ë ò è ï í ó ì ô ê ë õ ë ç è æ å ë ì ð í ð ò ö ð ö ñ ë ö ÷ ÷ è ñ ê ö ú ç ë ð è ö å ö û è ñ ó ð é è ÷ñ ë í ó ê ë ì ð í ó ì î ç ï ê ó ì ô í ë ö í è ì ö ç ñ ë í ó ê ë ì ð í ö ì ê é ë ö ñ ñ è ï ì ê ñ ë í ó ê ë ì ð í í ï î ò ö í í ë ì ó è ñ í üí æ ë î ó ö ç ì ë ë ê í ö ì ê ÷ ö å ó ç ó ë í ý ó ð ò î ò ó ç ê ñ ë ì ãþ ã ä ì î è ï ñ ö ô ë ð ò ë ê ë õ ë ç è æ å ë ì ð è ÷ í ð ö ÷ ÷ ö î î è å å è ê ö ð ó è ì í ý ó ð ò ó ì ñ ë í è ñ ð ç ö ì ê í ãÿ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ö î î è å å è ê ö ð ó è ì í ö ì ê ö î î è å å è ê ö ð ó è ì íí ï ó ð ö ú ç ë ö ì ê ö ÷ ÷ è ñ ê ö ú ç ë ð è ñ ë í ó ê ë ì ð í ý ó ð ò ñ ë ê ï î ë ê å è ú ó ç ó ð é ÷ è ñ ñ ë ö ê é ö î î ë í í ð è� è ý ì ð è ý ì ö å ë ì ó ð ó ë í ã� ã ä ì î è ï ñ ö ô ë ð ò ë ê ë õ ë ç è æ å ë ì ð è ÷ å ó î ñ è � ò è ï í ó ì ô ö ì ê í ó å ó ç ö ñ ó ì � ÷ ó ç ç ê ë ì í ó ð é ê è ý ì ð è ý ì÷ è ñ í ë ö í è ì ö ç ö ì ê ç è ì ô � ð ë ñ å ñ ë ì ð ö ç ã� ö ô ë â � � è ï ñ ó í å � ë õ ë ç è æ å ë ì ð � è ç ó î ó ë í� � ã � ð è ï ñ ó í å æ ç ö ì ì ó ì ô æ ñ è î ë í í í ò è ï ç ê î è å æ ñ ë ò ë ì í ó õ ë ç é ö ê ê ñ ë í í ð ò ë ó å æ ç ó î ö ð ó è ì í è ÷ð è ï ñ ó í å ü ë î è ì è å ó î ê ë õ ë ç è æ å ë ì ð ü ë å æ ç è é å ë ì ð ü ò è ï í ó ì ô ü ç ö ì ê ï í ë ü � è ì ó ì ô ü ú é ç ö ýë ì ÷ è ñ î ë å ë ì ð ü í ð ñ ö ð ó ÷ ó î ö ð ó è ì � è ý ì ë ñ í ò ó æ ü î è å å ï ì ó ð é õ ó ð ö ç ó ð é ü ð è ï ñ ó í å å ö ñ � ë ðæ ñ è û ë î ð ó è ì í ü ð ò ë ë ì õ ó ñ è ì å ë ì ð ü ö ì ê î è å å ï ì ó ð é ó ì ÷ ñ ö í ð ñ ï î ð ï ñ ë ñ è ö ê í ü í ë ý ë ñ ü ý ö ð ë ñ üë å ë ñ ô ë ì î é í ë ñ õ ó î ë í ü ö ì ê ÷ ó ñ ë æ ñ è ð ë î ð ó è ì ! ã� ö ô ë ø â ù è å å ï ì ó ð é ê ë õ ë ç è æ å ë ì ð ô è ö ç íø ã � è æ ñ è å è ð ë ð ò ë ê ë õ ë ç è æ å ë ì ð è ÷ ò è ï í ó ì ô ó í ö ÷ ÷ è ñ ê ö ú ç ë ÷ è ñ é ë ö ñ � ñ è ï ì ê ñ ë í ó ê ë ì ð íö ì ê í ë ö í è ì ö ç ë å æ ç è é ë ë í ã� � ã � è í ï æ æ è ñ ð ü ë ì î è ï ñ ö ô ë ö ì ê ú ñ è ö ê ë ì ð ë å æ è ñ ö ñ é ö ÷ ÷ è ñ ê ö ú ç ë ò è ï í ó ì ô í è ç ï ð ó è ì í ÷ è ñí ë ö í è ì ö ç í ð ö ÷ ÷ ã� " ã � è í ï æ æ è ñ ð ê ë õ ë ç è æ å ë ì ð è æ æ è ñ ð ï ì ó ð ó ë í ð ò ö ð ÷ ö î ó ç ó ð ö ð ë ð ò è í ë ç ó õ ó ì ô ö ì ê ý è ñ � ó ì ô ó ì� è ÷ ó ì è ð è ú ï é è ñ ñ ë ì ð í ï ó ð ö ú ç ë ü ö ê ë # ï ö ð ë ö ì ê ö ÷ ÷ è ñ ê ö ú ç ë ò è ï í ó ì ô ã� ö ô ë ø ø ù è å å ï ì ó ð é ê ë õ ë ç è æ å ë ì ð è ú û ë î ð ó õ ë í� ã $ ï æ æ è ñ ð æ ñ è ô ñ ö å í ö ì ê æ è ç ó î ó ë í ð ò ö ð í ï æ æ è ñ ð ö ÷ ÷ è ñ ê ö ú ç ë ò è ï í ó ì ô ÷ è ñ í ë ö í è ì ö çý è ñ � ë ñ í ö ì ê ÷ ï ç ç � ð ó å ë ñ ë í ó ê ë ì ð í ã� ã % ê ë ì ð ó ÷ é ö ç ð ë ñ ì ö ð ó õ ë ÷ è ñ å í è ÷ ò è ï í ó ì ô ü ò ë ö ç ð ò ö ì ê ñ ë î ñ ë ö ð ó è ì ñ ë # ï ó ñ ë å ë ì ð í ÷ è ñí ë ì ó è ñ í ã� ö ô ë ø & $ ë ì ó è ñ í � è ç ó î ó ë í� ã � ò ë � ó í ð ñ ó î ð ý ó ç ç ë ì î è ï ñ ö ô ë ð ò ë ê ë õ ë ç è æ å ë ì ð è ÷ ö õ ö ñ ó ë ð é è ÷ ì è ì � � � � � � � � � � � � �ò è ï í ó ì ô ü ó ì î ç ï ê ó ì ô ë ' ð ë ì ê ë ê î ö ñ ë ü ö ð � ò è å ë î ö ñ ë ö ì ê � ú ú ë é ÷ ó ë ç ê ( ò è ï í ó ì ô ã) * + + , � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ç ó � ë ö î î è å å è ê ö ð ó è ì÷ è ñ ð ò è í ë ý ò è ö ñ ë ö ú ç ë ð è ç ó õ ë ó ì ê ë æ ë ì ê ë ì ð ç é ó ì ö ô ñ è ï æ ò è å ë í ë ð ð ó ì ô ã - ë í ó ê ë ì ð íò ö õ ë í ë æ ö ñ ö ð ë ñ è è å í ü ç ó å ó ð ë ê ó ì � ñ è è å î è è � ó ì ô è æ æ è ñ ð ï ì ó ð é ö ì ê ö î ë ì ð ñ ö ç ê ó ì ó ì ôñ è è å ã � ç ó õ ë � ó ì ò è ï í ë � ë ë æ ë ñ ö ì ê � è ñ ì ï ñ í ë ç ó õ ë í ó ì ð ò ë ú ï ó ç ê ó ì ô ã � ú ú ë é ÷ ó ë ç ê $ è î ó ë ð éæ ñ è å è ð ë í ð ò ë î è ì î ë æ ð ó ì . ù ã

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` a b ^ c ` ] \ d ` ^ e ] [ f ] [ ` g ] h h i [ [ \ e ^ c _ j d [ k j \ kl m n n o p q r s tu t v w r x y l q p y z q { y | | } o ~ y q o p � ~ s z o ~ l y s r p q w r � � � y | � � y | y q � o �p r ~ q � | � ~ s p r ~ q � z o ~ q p o | | r s w o m l y ~ � s o { ~ q o { ~ � { y q w p r l n r z qq o � � � o p s � � y | y q � t� t � � � o p s � � | r p r ~ q � | � ~ s � � � o p s � � | r o { ~ r p l w y n l o | m q y o ~ l � o p n r o n | r | y � y ~ � � ~ s{ o p � y ~ � y ~ v o � y ~ o { y | | � r r � n | o p r s t� t v w r x y l q p y z q { y | | n p o } o q r n p o z r l l r l q w � q r ~ l m p r s r z y l y o ~ } � � r p l w r � p � p o } o m ps y � r p l r n o n m | � q y o ~ l { w r ~ y q z o } r l q o y } n o p q � ~ q y l l m r l | y � r � � � o p s � � | r w o m l y ~ �o � � r z q y � r l t� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �   � � ¡ ¢ � � � �   � � � � �   � £ � � � � � � � � ¤ � � � � �  n p o � y s r o n r ~ � q p � ~ l n � p r ~ q � � ~   � � � � ¥ � � � � � � � � � ¡ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �   � ¥ � � � � �} � � r p l t¦ t v w r x y l q p y z q { y | | z o ~ l y s r p ~ o ~ � } � p � r q o p p r l q p y z q r s } � p � r q l o | m q y o ~ l q o � � � o p s � � | r §� q q � y ~ � � | r o { ~ r p l w y n � ~ s � � � o p s � � | r p r ~ q � | t¨ © t ª n n o p q m ~ y q y r l � o p } o p q � � � r l m n n o p q � ~ s } � p � r q p r ~ q � | � l m z w � l l r z o ~ s � p � l m y q r l �{ y | | � r z o ~ l y s r p r s t¨ ¨ t v w r x y l q p y z q { y | | n p o } o q r q w r n p y � � q r s r � r | o n } r ~ q o � � z z r n q � � | r � l m y q � � | r �� � � o p s � � | r p r ~ q � | w o m l y ~ � � o p | o ~ � � q r p } � ~ s l r � l o ~ � | z o } } m ~ y q � } r } � r p l q w � q y ly ~ | y ~ r { y q w | o z � | � � � o p s � � | r p r ~ q � | w o m l y ~ � ~ r r s l t¨ « t v w r x y l q p y z q { y | | n p o } o q r q w r n p y � � q r s r � r | o n } r ~ q o � � z z r n q � � | r � l m y q � � | r �� � � o p s � � | r w o m l y ~ � � o p l n r z y � | ~ r r s l p r l y s r ~ q l t¬ � � r ¨ ­ ­ l r z q y o ~ u t ® x ¯ ¨ ¨ ® x ¬ � l n r z y � y r l y ~ l o } r s r q � y | w o m l y ~ � n o | y z y r l � o p q w � q � p r �� n n r ~ s y � � � ~ s ° � ¯ o z � | � p r � ¬ | � ~ l l n r z y � � y ~ l o } r s r q � y | w o m l y ~ � n o | y z y r l � o p q w o l r � p r � l t¬ � � r ¨ u ­ x r � y ~ y q y o ~ l± ² ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · ¸ ³ ¹ º » ¼ ½ ¾ ¿ } r � ~ l w o m l y ~ � q w � q y l � s r À m � q r y ~ z o ~ s y q y o ~ � l m y q � � | r y ~ l y Á r � � ~ s� � � o p s � � | r t

Â Ã Ã Ä Å Æ Ç È É Ê Ë Ä Ì Í Î Ï Ð Ñ Ò Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö × Ø Ù Ó Ù Ú Û Ü Ý × Ý Õ Ý Þ Ó Ô Ù Ø Ý Ø Û Ý × Õ ß Ó à á Ö × Ø Ü Ó Ô â Ó Ô Ý Ù Ö Ó × ã áä å æ ç è é å ê ë ì à á Ö × Ø Ö á Ý í í Ó Ô Õ Ý î ï Û ð Ú Û × ñ Ù Ú Û Ò Ó á Ù Ó í Ý Õ Û ò à Ý Ù Û á Ú Û ï Ù Û Ô ó Õ Ó Û á ô × Ó Ù Û õ Ò Û Û Õö ÷ ø ì ù ë ì ú ç å ë ì û ü è ý þ ì ÿ å � � ì ú ç è ý � ä ë è þ ë þ ì ç é ç û å ç ç é ë � ý é ë è ç è ç þ ì ý ç è ü å � å ü � ù ù ì � ü � æ û å �� ì ä å � å � ê þ ì ý ç ú ÿ å � ç ê ë ì ú ç è ý � � � ì � è ü å � ç � ý ü � ü � ì þ � þ � ì � � � ý è � � é è ì ý ç é å ý ü é ì ú ç å �æ � ì � ü å � ü å ù è ý è é è ì ý Ó í Ý í í Ó Ô Õ Ý î Ö ï Ö Ù �� Ä Å Ê Ë Ä Ì Í Î Ï Ð × Û Û Õ Ö á Õ Û á Ò Ô Ö î Û Õ Ó × Ù Ú Û á Ý Û ð Û î á Ö Ù Û Ý á ð Ú Û × ñ Ú Ó à á Û Ú Ó ï Õ á ð Ú Ö Ò Ú Ý Ô Ûú ý � æ û å é ì � ù ù ì � ü ç ë å û é å � é ë � é ÿ å å é ç � ü å � ú � þ � � é ë å ë ì ú ç è ý � è ç � ü å � ú � é å è ý þ ì ý ü è é è ì ý � ý üý ì é è ý ý å å ü ì ù � å � � è � ç � ê ç ú è é � æ è û è é � � é ë å ë ì ú ç è ý � è ç ç ú è é � æ û å è ý ç è � å ù ì � é ë å � å ç è ü å ý é ç � ê � ý ü� ù ù ì � ü � æ è û è é � ý ì � ÿ ç � � ë å ý ì � ÿ ç ë � � å æ å å ý � ü � ú ç é å ü ì � å � é è ÿ å é ì � å ù û å þ é é ë å ë ì ú ç è ý �å � � å þ é � é è ì ý ç ì ù � � ý � ü è � ý ç � � ù ù ì � ü � æ è û è é � ê ì ý å ì ù é ë å å û å ÿ å ý é ç ú ç å ü é ì ü å é å � ÿ è ý å þ ì � åë ì ú ç è ý � ý å å ü ê è ç � å þ ì � ý è � å ü � ç � ÿ � � è ÿ ú ÿ ì ù ö ÷ � å � þ å ý é ì ù é ë å ë ì ú ç å ë ì û ü è ý þ ì ÿ åá â Û × Ù Ó × á Ú Û ï Ù Û Ô � � � Ç Î Ï Ç È É Ê � � Ï Ê Å Í � Î � ÿ å � ý ç ë ì ú ç è ý � � û � ý ý å ü � ý ü æ ú è û é é ì æ å � ù ù ì � ü � æ û å é ë � ì ú � ëç ú æ ç è ü è å ç ì � ì é ë å � ÿ å � ý ç æ � ç å ü ì ý ë ì ú ç è ý � ý å å ü ç � ç ç å ç ç ÿ å ý é ç é ú ü è å ç è ý � þ ì ÿ ÿ ú ý è é �ì � � å � è ì ý � � ë å ç å � � ì þ å ç ç å ç � � å ì ù é å ý � ü ÿ è ý è ç é å � å ü æ � � þ ì ÿ ÿ ú ý è é � ë ì ú ç è ý � ç ì þ è å é � � � � Ç Î Ï Ç È É Ê Ë Ä Ì Í Î Ï Ð ÿ å � ý ç � � � è û � æ û å ê � þ þ å � é � æ û å ë ì ú ç è ý � è ý � � � ý � å ì ù þ ì ÿ ÿ ú ý è é �� � � � ì � � è � é å � ù ù ì � ü � æ è û è é � æ � � þ � å é ç �� Ä � Ä � Ê Å Ç � Î � Ê Ë Ä Ì Í Î Ï Ð ÿ å � ý ç � ÿ ú û é è � û å ù � ÿ è û � ü ä å û û è ý � ì � ü ä å û û è ý � ç ì ä ý å ü æ � �þ ì ÿ � � ý � ê å � þ ë ì ù ä ë ì ç å ç ë � � å ë ì û ü å � ç è ç � � å ç è ü å ý é ì ù ì ý å ü ä å û û è ý � ú ý è é ä è é ë è ý é ë åü å � å û ì � ÿ å ý é �� É Ì Í � Ê Å � Ê � Ê É Ä � � Ê Ï � Ä Å � É Ì Í � Ê Å Ë Ä Ì Í Î Ï Ð Ä Å � É Ì Í � Ê Å Î Ï Ð ! " þ ì ý þ å ý é � � é è ý � ü å � å û ì � ÿ å ý éì ý ç ÿ � û û å � û ì é ç ì ý � � ì � é è ì ý ì ù � û � � � å � ç è é å é ì � � ì é å þ é é ë å è ý é å � � è é � ì ù é ë å � � å å ýè ý ù � � ç é � ú þ é ú � å �� Ê Ï Í Î � # È Ä Ï Ì Í ÿ å � ý ç � � ì û ú ý é � � � ç þ ë å ÿ å è ý � ì ý è ý � æ � û � ä é ë � é å ý � æ û å ç ü å � å û ì � ÿ å ý é çé ì æ ú è û ü � ü ü è é è ì ý � û ú ý è é ç è ý � å é ú � ý ù ì � � ú æ û è þ � ÿ å ý è é è å ç ç ú þ ë � ç é ë å � � ì é å þ é è ì ý ì ù é ë åè ý é å � � è é � ì ù å � è ç é è ý � � � å å ý è ý ù � � ç é � ú þ é ú � å ê � ù ù ì � ü � æ û å ë ì ú ç è ý � ê � å ý é � û ë ì ú ç è ý � ì � ç � å þ è � û ý å å ü çë ì ú ç è ý � ê � ú æ û è þ � þ þ å ç ç è ÿ � � ì � å ÿ å ý é ç ê è ý ù � � ç é � ú þ é ú � å è ÿ � � ì � å ÿ å ý é ç ê� ý ü � � � � û � ý ü �$ É Ä Ç � Ë Ä � Ê ÿ å � ý ç � ë ì ú ç å % û è � å ç é � ú þ é ú � å æ ú è û é ì ý � ù û ì é � é è ì ý ç � ç é å ÿ ê è ý é å ý ü å ü ù ì � ë ú ÿ � ý� å ç è ü å ý é è � û � þ þ ì ÿ ÿ ì ü � é è ì ý � ý ü ý ì é � � è ÿ � � è û � è ý é å ý ü å ü ù ì � ê ì � ú ç å ü è ý ê ý � � è � � é è ì ý �& � Ê ' Î Ç É ( Ê Ê Æ Í ) è ý � å û � é è ì ý é ì ë ì ú ç è ý � ê ÿ å � ý ç � å ç è ü å ý é ç é ë � é � � å ç å ý è ì � ç ê ë � � å ÿ ì æ è û è é �þ ë � û û å ý � å ç ê ì � � � å � ù ù å þ é å ü ç è � ý è ù è þ � ý é û � æ � � ë � ç è þ � û ì � ÿ å ý é � û è û û ý å ç ç å ç �& � Ç Ã Ã Â ' ' Ä � � Ä Æ Ç � Î Ä Ï ÿ å � ý ç � æ ú è û ü è ý � ì � � ì � é è ì ý é ë å � å ì ù è ý ä ë è þ ë ç û å å � è ý � ú ý è é ç � � å� � ì � è ü å ü � ý ü * ì � � å ý é å ü æ � � ý è ý ç é è é ú é è ì ý ê � � å ý þ � ê ì � æ ú ç è ý å ç ç � ç ç é � ù ù � þ þ ì ÿ ÿ ì ü � é è ì ýì � ê è ý é ë å þ � ç å ì ù � ç þ ë ì ì û ê ç é ú ü å ý é � þ þ ì ÿ ÿ ì ü � é è ì ý ê � ý ü ä ë è þ ë è ç � å � ú û � é å ü � ý üÿ � è ý é � è ý å ü æ � ç ú þ ë æ ì ü � � ý ü ÿ � � è ý þ û ú ü å þ ì ÿ ÿ å � þ è � û ü è ý è ý � ù � þ è û è é è å ç �

APPENDIX 2 Review of Reports on Affordable Housing Needs and Options

District of Tofino 2002-2010

Introduction

Affordable housing has been an issue for Tofino, probably since its earliest days of settlement, but certainly since well before the Official Community Plan of 2002 when it was identified as a top priority for the District. This commitment paved the way for a period of six active years in which a number of interlinked studies and reports were undertaken, a variety of policies and plans were considered in detail, the Tofino Housing Corporation was established1 to manage future developments, and a significant number of steps were being taken toward defining and meeting the community’s need for a range of affordable housing types at cost levels which the private market was not supplying.2 These initiatives eventually focused on plans for a multi-phase affordable housing development on District-owned Lot 114, which is located between Tonquin Park and the Community Centre. The economic downturn of 2008 and subsequent changes in the policies and funding programs at all levels of government had a negative impact on these plans, slowing them to a near halt. The need for affordable housing, however, did not go away. It came back into focus with the recommendations made by Roberta Martell in 2010 (reviewed later in this document), as well as the establishment of the current Tofino Housing Management Committee, the gradual resurgence of tourism, the OCP review of 2013, and the election in 2014 of a mayor and council who are all agreed on the development of affordable housing as a priority during their term in office. To quote from the Vision Tofino Update:

Housing affordability is a very significant social issue in Tofino. Currently, Tofino has high housing costs, shortage of year-round rental housing, and shortage of accommodation for seasonal employees. (…) A comprehensive housing strategy will be required.3

In order to assess, learn from and build on the extensive work that has preceded the current Needs and Demand study, JG Consulting reviewed a number of key reports and other documents produced for the District in the period from 2002 to 2010. Their major findings are summarized in this Appendix. In our view, these documents are a rich source of ideas and analysis relevant to affordable housing in Tofino, and can be of considerable value as a resource to the District going forward.

1 Recommended in 2003 and again in 2004, and established in 2005. 2 See Appendix A1 of the Strategy prepared for the Tofino Attainable Housing Committee in May, 2004, for a brief discussion of the need for the District to play a leading role in the development of affordable rental housing. 3 OCP review, 2013, p. 28.

Page 1 of 8

Although many of the specifics in past reports are dated—hence the need for this study and other work relevant to future project development—it is striking how many of the major themes and findings of these reports are consistent with our findings. The brief review presented in this Appendix provides a synopsis of those documents to which we had access. They are presented one by one, in date order, to preserve the differences as well as highlight the similarities among them on a per report basis.4 1. (Oct 10, 2002). Affordable Staff Housing Project Report, Community Futures Development

Corporation, David Spearing (arch.), 41 pp. This is a 41-page largely technical document that takes as its starting point that affordable staff housing is the immediate need for the District to address, and establishes some of the details of this need in a survey of 15 employers. The main sections of the report discuss requirements for the development of such housing: design, construction costs, rezoning needs and site planning. Of particular interest, Spearing identifies a list of 10 requirements for a successful staff housing project, based on the “needs” put forward by the employers he surveyed. All of them have been echoed in the research done for the current study, with particular emphasis on the first two:

• Strict site management, caretaking, cleaning and repair. • Enough critical mass to justify paid management, defined as a minimum of 32 rooms. • Location convenient to users. • Site with minimum development costs. • Economical, yet attractive, with durable construction and affordable maintenance costs. • Appropriate new zoning or “accommodation by authorities in interpretation of bylaws”. • Transference of on-site staff accommodation requirements from some resorts/users to

a common site, and their corresponding contribution to site and construction costs. • Development funding. • Cooperation and support from business community. • Cooperation and support from the District of Tofino.

2. (August, 2003). Affordable Employee Accommodation Survey, Community Futures

Development Corporation, Lori Lamire, 10pp. This report sought to reach a wider sample of employers by using a one-page mailed survey to 385 recipients. This resulted in a 22% response rate (83 responses). Taken altogether, these employers (the respondents) had 606 employees, either seasonally or year-round. Of those employers with full year employees, 66% believed that their employees had

trouble finding suitable accommodation and projected that 39% of those employees (202 out of 516) would benefit from the provision of more affordable staff housing.

4 The documents discussed here are probably not the total of those produced in this time period. There may be others to be found in the District’s archives to be added to the documentary resource base.

Page 2 of 8

Of those employers with seasonal employees, 94% believed that at least some of their employees had trouble finding suitable accommodation and projected that 41% (246 out of 606) would benefit from the provision of more affordable staff housing.

In answer to an open question on “opinions and suggestions”, employers put forward many that remain central to today’s discussions, including the following: the range of housing types that would help, from a summer-only campground to year-

round rental housing for long-term residents committed to the community; the importance of factors such as building design and on-going management to ensure

that affordable employee housing, especially for seasonal employees, is a good “fit” with the standards of the community and the reasonable needs of residents.

the gap between development costs and the realities of a low-wage economy in terms of achieving “affordability”;

the balance of financial responsibility between employers (who benefit directly) and the community as a whole (who benefit indirectly).

3. (Dec. 3, 2003). Assessment of Housing Needs, memo to the Attainable Housing Committee

from Allan Neilson-Welch, N-W Consulting Inc, 8 pp. This “memo” refers to a previous letter to the District Administrator (July 21, 2003), which was not available to JG Consulting Services, outlined a 10-stage work program for the development of an Attainable Housing Strategy. The memo itself reports on published data on Tofino’s work force and their housing needs, and the results of 30 interviews with selected stakeholders. The major conclusions drawn by the consultant were that: his analysis of the demographic data led him to conclude that affordable rental housing

was Tofino’s greatest need. stakeholder interviews indicated that the absence of such housing prevented people

from committing to full time, long term residence in Tofino and contributing to its future.

data from many other communities makes it clear that few private developers have an interest in building for the private rental market, especially at the low cost/low profit end, which pushes the problem over to governments and non-profit housing agencies.

the seasonal spike in demand for affordable housing for short-term employees is problematic, though the predominant opinion of those interviewed was that employers themselves should meet this need, allowing the community to focus on the needs of longer-term residents for affordable rental housing.

some interviewees supported options like campgrounds and dormitories for seasonal accommodation, but others resisted anything that could become “a ghetto” with attendant social problems.

insufficient data existed for him to assess the extent of problems for renters such as overcrowding and substandard buildings, as well as the overall impact of vacation rentals on availability and affordability—issues for which there is still insufficient data.

Page 3 of 8

4. (May 25, 2004). D/Tofino Attainable Housing Committee Strategy, Nelson-Welch

Consulting, 25 pgs + drawings. This Strategy document was prepared by the consultant under the direction of the District of Tofino’s Attainable Housing Committee. It identifies the most pressing housing need in Tofino as “secure and affordable short- and long-term rental housing”, with the following specific targets:

i. Long-term, year-round, secure rentals for low income residents. ii. Decent rental housing for seasonal employees. iii. Rental housing for families. iv. Rental housing for seniors.

The Strategy focuses in some detail on two major innovative steps, each discussed in a separate “chapter” of the document:

1. the establishment of a “Tofino Housing Authority” to take charge of the housing file and subsequent developments, seen as a necessity because of the amount of time and professional expertise required to bring about significant development of new rental housing projects to meet the variety of Tofino’s needs over time;

2. a “bricks and mortar” pilot project for employee housing, as suggested earlier by the

Community Futures Development Corporation, taking advantage of District-owned land, specifically District Lot 114—land which remains undeveloped to this day.

The current consultants recommend a review of the arguments for these two steps by those who are involved in the affordable housing debates of today given that, despite their merits, both were subsequently discredited. This history is not well understood in the community today, but it has left a negative legacy nonetheless. In our view, they deserve reconsideration by today’s decision-makers—in their essence if not in all their details—and they will certainly resurface in public debate going forward, at which time familiarity with the facts will be helpful. As well, there are two appendices to the Strategy report that are well worth reviewing: (1) Appendix A makes the case for the District taking the lead role in the development of affordable housing in Tofino given the absence of interest from the private sector; (2) Appendix B presents a series of “potential actions” for the District to undertake in relation to progress on affordable housing, some of which may well have been accomplished in the intervening years, but are outside the scope of this study to review. A third appendix, which was not available to us, contains drawings for the proposed CFDC housing pilot project (discussed in report #1 above).

Page 4 of 8

5. (July 2005). Tofino Housing Corporation Inc, DL114 Conceptual Development Plan,

Summary Report, David Nairne & Associates, 8 pp + drawings. With the Tofino Housing Corporation now in place as recommended in the Strategy document discussed above, this Development Plan focuses on action, presenting a feasibility study of how the District Lot 114 site could be developed for a blend of residential uses and community amenities, with supporting drawings to illustrate the proposal, and preliminary infrastructure cost estimates.5 Features include: (i) a combination of large and compact single family lots plus 4-plex rental housing and townhouse sites; (ii) possible expansion of Tonquin Park; (iii) a small local park; (iv) a trail network through DL 114, linking the Community Hall with Tonquin Park; and (v) the preservation of an existing wetland. The potential residential lot/unit yield is presented as: 38 large single family lots; 33 compact single family lots; 4-plex rental housing – 56 units; townhouses – 65 units; TOTAL = 192 units

The report also includes a section on “Recommended Next Steps” which is likely to be useful in any new review of the possible development of District Lot 114 in the future. 6. (Dec.21, 2005). Proposal Template: Tofino Housing Corporation Start Up, CFDC, 12pp. This “proposal template” appears to have been written to submit to funders, specifically in this case to the Western Economic Diversification Fund (WEDF).6 It describes the background to the establishment of the Tofino Housing Corporation in 2004, and lays out the start-up cost financing required to begin phase 1 of the DL 114 development. The proposal presents the Corporation’s business model as predicated on financial analysis showing that the costs of construction can be self-sustained by the sale and rental of its properties once development is underway, but it requires a relatively small amount of start-up capital that it has only partially secured at the time of making the proposal to the WEDF. It is not clear to the consultants what the outcome of the specific proposal was, but the overall financial case it makes might merit further review for possibilities of present-day application.

5 It appears that the concept of DL 114 as a potential new “neighbourhood” was focused on a mixed ownership model, with less stress on staff housing than had been prioritized in earlier documents. 6 Note that a version of this government agency does still exist, and may offer funding opportunities for “infrastructure” and “community development”. See http://www.wd-deo.gc.ca/eng/106.asp

Page 5 of 8

7. (Aug. 26, 2006). Tofino Housing Corporation Strategic Plan, 2006-2008, 18 pp.

The Tofino Housing Corporation (THC) had become an incorporated business in 2005. It was overseen by a paid executive director and a 5-person board of volunteer directors. The District of Tofino was its sole shareholder. Its mandate was to “meet the needs of a diverse community of residents and seasonal employees through the provision of perpetually attainable housing”. The Strategic Plan lists four priorities:

i. Focus development on DL 114.ii. Develop sound management & administrative practices.iii. Advise District Council on housing matters.iv. Lobby senior governments and housing agencies for support and resources.

The document goes on to present (i) a business model overview, (ii) a market analysis, (iii) an assessment of competition, (iv) a sales and marketing plan, (v) an operating plan, (vi) a human resources plan, (vii) a 16-month action plan and (viii) a detailed SWOT analysis.

8. (July 28, 2008). Tofino Housing Corp Feasibility Study & Development Options, FinalReport, prepared by reSource Rethinking Building Inc., 13 pp + appendices.

Consultant Robert Brown was contracted to provide a financial analysis of the feasibility of providing both attainable ownership and affordable rental housing for local residents (we note the absence of reference to seasonal needs for short-term staff housing) on DL 114. Brown describes the development as having two objectives:

(1) to provide attainable home ownership housing for local residents which would sell for a minimum of 25% below current market value, and

(2) to provide affordable rental housing with a target rent of no more than 30% of tenants’ gross household income.

The study covers what are proposed as Phases 1 and 2 of the project, comprising 7 compact single family homes plus 8 rental units in a 4-plex format in Phase 1, and 18 townhomes, 24 apartments and 4 rental apartment units in Phase 2. Each phase also anticipates the development of 6 serviced single family lots for sale on the open market to partially fund the attainable housing units.

Brown’s analysis, including financial proformas, demonstrates that the business plan developed by the THC for the unit numbers and affordability objectives it set for DL 114 was financially feasible. It goes on to suggest some “next steps” to further test the assumptions and refine the business plan, with the clear expectation that the project could be moved along towards the

Page 6 of 8

start of construction and delivery of housing in fairly short order. What intervened was first, the world economic downturn with its powerful negative impact on tourism, and then the local election of 2008 which reflected negative public reaction to the affordable housing agenda.

9. (Oct 2010). Survey 2010: Employee Housing Needs Assessment, Tofino PropertyManagement Board for the Tofino Housing Corporation, 5 pp.

The purpose of these surveys was to assess the interest in and potential need for employee housing in Tofino. There were two mailed surveys (1 page each, surveys not attached), one for residents and one for employers. It was also advertised in the Westerly News and distributed through the Chamber of Commerce. The Board received 25 responses from residents and 23 responses from businesses.

Their report is a data summary only, with no interpretation or recommendations.

Of the residents who responded, 72% were home owners. Even so, 92% believed thataffordable housing is an important issue for the community. Those who were not homeowners said it was because they could not afford to buy in the Tofino market.

Of the employers who responded, 39% provided some staff housing; 80% of seasonalemployees needed accommodation; 43% had lost or could not hire staff becausehousing was not available; 17% could not achieve full staffing levels for that reason.

The solutions and comments quoted in the report are consistent with current themes.

10. (Nov. 2010). Tofino Attainable Housing: Recommendations for Moving Forward, RobertaMartell (special project coordinator), 9 pp.

In a critical appraisal of Tofino’s stalled affordable housing agenda, Martell takes the view that the early work on an affordable housing strategy that was begun after the 2002 OCP moved ahead well until the decision was taken to focus on the development of DL 114. In her view, that decision was “both solid and forward-looking”—but it was a long-term strategy with significant up front engineering, development financing and rezoning requirements, and it failed to meet the community’s desire for immediate action with tangible results, thus losing public support.8

Martell also identifies a list of factors that had changed since the publication of the Housing Strategy of 2004, with negative impacts on need and opportunity to develop affordable housing, as follows:

The cost of home ownership had risen in Tofino, making it harder for low wage families.

8 In the experience of the current consultants, affordable housing development is generally a long-term proposition, and communities with obvious needs that have been recognized by the public often have a hard time accepting the slow pace. It takes considerable political skill to manage the pressures of rising expectations for “people in homes” with the realities of development, especially when undertaken by local governments and community agencies, whose need for public process slows them down.

Page 7 of 8

The strategy of selling District-owned land to help fund building—as was the THC’s intention for DL 114—had become less attractive/feasible.

The granting capacity of government agencies and foundations had fallen considerably.

Martell also offers a series of recommendations (see below) that are worth reviewing by the District in relation to current conditions. For the short term she recommends three initiatives, and suggests ways of implementing them: build one 4-plex in phase 1 of plan for DL 114; build affordable rental micro-homes; amend policies to permit laneway housing.

For the longer term she recommends (i) that District staff undertake a review of the Tofino Housing Corporation; and (ii) that plans continue for the development of Lot 114, stating that “its potential cannot be overstated”. Finally, she offers three more unusual ideas for consideration: an international design competition for innovative micro houses; adoption of an innovative model of resident-built affordable housing using an “air space

parcel strata” model; review the results of THC’s 2010 Housing Survey for ideas for a continuum of small

space, non-traditional housing solutions that aim to create basic shelter. Conclusion As noted earlier, it is possible that this attempt to reconstruct and summarize the historical record of analysis and planning for affordable housing Tofino inadvertently omits some reports and could be added to in the future with the inclusion of other documents (such as staff reports). However, summary provides a nearly continuous record of documentary evidence over almost a decade up to 2010 for the need for a significant increase in the supply of affordable and acceptable housing in Tofino, and many plans and ideas for achieving it—not easily or overnight, but with effort over time. The consultants believe it makes a major contribution to the planning, community discussion and District of Tofino decision-making that is now required.

Page 8 of 8