POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE

Date: June 18, 1999

Author/Local: T.French/7041

RTS No. 787

CC File No. 4654

P&E: July 8, 1999

TO:	Standing Committee on Planning & Environment
FROM:	Director of City Plans, Chief License Inspector and City Building Inspector, in consultation with Director of Housing Centre and Director of Legal Services
SUBJECT:	Secondary Suites: Program Compliance, Phase-out Suites and Enforcement Issues

RECOMMENDATION

A. THAT Council endorse Option 4 as outlined in this report: to pursue ways to bring more secondary suites into legal conformity while also investigating more effective enforcement methods; and in the meantime allow phase-out suites whose permit expiry date comes up while this work is underway to remain in operation.

B. THAT Council request staff to report back in early 2000 on the details of work program and resources required to implement Option 4.

C. THAT Council instruct the Chief Licence Inspector to withhold enforcement on phase-out suite use for up to 3 years from the date of adoption of these Recommendations, other than in cases of safety hazard, or other circumstances where he may deem enforcement necessary.

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of A, B and C.

COUNCIL POLICY

Council policy on secondary suites developed between 1986 and 1990. In summary, the policy is to:

· Allow secondary suites in the zoning for areas of the City that indicate they want them; and return areas that do not support them to single family [except for family suites];
· Allow family suites in the zoning for all single-family areas;
· Ensure that secondary suites meet basic safety and livability standards; and
· Enforce closure of illegal secondary suites in a gradual manner over time.

In addition, on June 6, 1995, Council approved CityPlan to provide directions for Vancouver. Two key directions related to secondary suites are:

· "Neighbourhood Housing Variety: ...increase neighbourhood housing variety throughout the city, especially in neighbourhood centres; and give people the opportunity to stay in their neighbourhood as their housing needs change and, by doing so, take a share of regional growth"; and

· "Addressing Housing Costs: ...increase the supply of subsidized and lower cost market housing throughout the city through the use of senior government programs, private sector incentives, and City regulations and subsidies".

SUMMARY

Ten years ago, Council began a program to allow secondary suites to be legal under the Zoning and Building By-laws. Over half the RS lots of the city were rezoned to allow suites after surveys indicated there was neighbourhood support. For older buildings, upgrading standards lower than full code requirements were put in place.

Since then, city-wide, about 20% of suites have entered the legal streams - becoming permanent or phase-out. [See below for definitions]. The figure is 22% in suite areas, and 14% in non-suite areas. A large portion of suites in both old and new buildings have not come forward, and remain illegal. To some degree it may be City standards which are deterring suite owners and home builders from conforming. Some of the requirements about which owners complain are the required ceiling heights and sprinklering [for older buildings]; location of electrical panel in a common area, and the requirement for non-strata title covenant on title [for new buildings].

The long term enforcement program, adopted in 1988, concentrates on implementing the phase-out, permanent, or family suite options, assuming owners would come forward voluntarily. We also enforce if there is an safety hazard, that we become aware of - usually through a complaint. Beyond this, the City does not actively seek out illegal suites, but enforce only on a complaint basis. Various practical problems with enforcement have arisen, including penalties which are not effective deterrents, and difficulties in ensuring that closed suites remain closed. This means that many owners probably feel that the cost and inconvenience of becoming legal are not outweighed by the risk of enforcement.

The 10-year phase-out suites are beginning to expire, and will come due for closure. The first group, in Joyce area, came due on April 1, 1999. Some owners are requesting extensions. Enforcing closure of these suites - which have met 10-year phase-out standards, and whose owners have been law-abiding - while illegal suites remain open, creates an inequitable situation. The continuing illegality of so many suites also presents issues for the future, in terms of having reasonable levels of safety and livability in this important housing component, ensuring some stability for tenants, and for the City's ability to enforce standards of maintenance.

Some options for action at this point are described at the end of this report. Given the City's original objectives with the suite program, augmented by the adopted CityPlan directions to ensure housing variety and affordability, staff recommend that Council approve a two-fold approach: re-examining standards, which may lead to lowering of some barriers to legalization; while also finding ways to make enforcement more effective.

In the meantime, staff recommend withholding enforcement on phase-out suites for a period of up to 3 years. It is reasonable to do this to provide owners with the opportunity to take advantage of any changes that result from the work. Enforcement on the basis of safety and complaints would continue as now.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an overview of the current status of secondary suites; to outline some issues; and to recommend a course of action.

BACKGROUND

In the mid-'80s, after many years of tolerating secondary suites existing illegally in single family areas, City Council decided to act due to increasing concerns of various kinds. Many neighbours objected to the non-single family use, to parking problems, or to their perception that suite owners did not pay their fair share for city services. On the other hand, suite owners, tenants, and housing advocates were concerned to maintain suites as affordable housing and "mortgage helpers". The City was facing issues of liability for life safety in suites. Prior to the suite review, Council and staff had to deal with about 80 suite complaints a month. Since there was no opportunity for suites to become legal, the only choices were either to force the suite to close or to evaluate each one on a case by case basis to determine which owners merited being allowed to temporarily keep their suites due to "hardship".

The City's secondary suite program was developed over the course of many Council reports on different aspects of the issue. However, Council's objectives can be summarized as:

· Allow secondary suites in the zoning for areas of the City that indicate they want them; and return areas that do not support them to single family [other than for family suites];
· Allow family suites in the zoning for all single family areas;
· Ensure that secondary suites meet basic safety and livability standards; and
· Enforce closure of illegal secondary suites in a gradual manner over time.

CityPlan also includes directions to ensure housing variety in neighbourhoods, and housing affordability by various means. Secondary suites are important contributors to both these directions.

The first group of 10-year phase-out suites - about 165 units in the Joyce area - came due for closure on April 1, 1999. Some owners are requesting extensions. About 2000 phase-out suites in other areas will come up to their expiry dates between now and 2005, and staff anticipate there will be additional extension requests. Over the 10-year course of the secondary suite program, a number of issues relating to enforcement have arisen.

It is timely to step back and look at how the secondary suite program is meeting the original objectives, and whether adjustments are needed at this point. Staff have therefore prepared this overview which first summarizes what the City's policies and regulations are; second, outlines the current status of the suite situation, and issues that have arisen; and third, recommends a course of action.

This report deals only with the areas that were the subject of secondary suite zoning review -all the areas then zoned RS-1. [These areas have since been differentiated into RS-1, RS-1S, RS-3, RS-3A, RS-5, RS-5S, RS-6.] Mixed use/commercial C zones, and other residential RT and RM zones already permitted suites and were not included in the review. A few small RS zones - RS-1A, RS-2, RS-1-B, and RS-4 - were also not included because they already permitted suites or other second units under some conditions.

DISCUSSION

1. Secondary Suites: Regulations and Enforcement Program

(a) Zoning

In October 1986, in order to halt the construction of illegal suites pending resolution of the suite issue, Council passed a zoning amendment to prohibit second kitchens in new houses. Later, after much consideration, a pilot program, and several citywide polls, the City undertook a neighbourhood by neighbourhood information and survey program. This resulted in about half the RS-1 lots in the city being rezoned to RS-1S to allow secondary suites. Subsequent zoning programs have changed some areas to RS-5S, which also allows secondary suites.

As a point of information, the Zoning and Development By-law does not use the term secondary suite. Rather, a house with a permanent suite comes under the definition of a "two-family dwelling" or "multiple conversion dwelling". The Building By-law does use the term secondary suite. For the sake of simplicity, this report will use secondary suite as the general term, of which there are subcategories described below.

(i) In Suite Areas [i.e., RS-1S, RS-5S]

Once the new zoning was adopted in an area, all property owners were notified of the options available. Those with secondary suites could choose to become a phase-out suite or a permanent suite, or to close their suite.

A phase-out suite is an option for owners who cannot or do not wish to meet standards for permanent suites, but for whom immediate closure would have been too onerous. To qualify, the suite must have been in existence, and illegal, on October 22, 1986. Phase-outs may be permitted for varying lengths of time from 2 to 10 years, subject to meeting varying code upgrading requirements, set out below. The phase-out period in each area starts from the date the neighbourhood was notified of the start of the Secondary Suite Program [i.e., after the zoning was in place]. Only one phase-out period is permitted for each suite.

Owners with suites could also choose to make their suites permanent, by meeting somewhat higher upgrading standards. Owners installing suites after October 22, 1986 may only become permanent - phase-out is not an option. The owner's choice is made after an initial inspection which outlines what upgrades will be needed to meet the standards applicable to each option.

(ii) In Non-Suite Areas [i.e., RS-1, RS-3, RS-3A, RS-5, RS-6]

In areas which did not support suites, owners of secondary suites could choose either to become a phase-out suite, as described above, or to close the suite. The only other option in these areas is a family suite, described below.

(iii) Family Suites

Both suite and non-suite zones permit family suites. These have significant restrictions: the head of household must reside in the building; the suite must be occupied by his or her children, parents or grandparents; or persons and their family providing full time support services. Permits are limited to a 2 year time period, but can be extended upon new application. Because family suites must meet the same upgrading standards as permanent suites (see below), effectively they are only an option in the non-suite areas. Staff advise owners in suite areas that they may as well obtain permission for a permanent suite.

(iv) "Moratorium" and "Hardship" Suites

At the start of the secondary suites review, there were about 770 "moratorium" suites in existence. These are suites which had time-limited development permits issued in the late 60's, expiring in December, 1974, as a result of an enforcement moratorium policy. In addition, over the years Council had allowed about 550 suites to continue to exist on the basis of "hardship". In terms of zoning, owners of these two categories of suites were offered the same choices as other suite owners: phase-out, permanent, or closure.

(v) No Strata-Titling of Suites

Strata-titling of suites is not permitted. In the case of existing buildings, control is through the City's control of strata conversion. In the case of new construction, the City requires suite applicants to place a restrictive covenant on title that prohibits future registration of a strata plan. There were various reasons for this Council decision. The older suites do not meet the upgrading standards of the Condominium Act. Strata-titling was also felt to be a departure from the intent of providing affordable rental units, as "mortgage helpers" for owners. It was also felt it might accelerate the rate of change in neighbourhoods, with demolition for construction of new two-family dwellings.

(b) Building By-law, Etc.

It was recognized that many older buildings with secondary suites could not meet the full code requirements that would be expected of a new 2 family dwelling, in a cost-effective or practical way. Insisting they do so would lead to many closures over a short period of time, with ensuing problems of loss of affordable housing, and loss of rental income to home owners paying mortgages. However, there was also a recognized need to have some reasonable life safety standards both for tenants' benefit and for reasons of City liability. The adopted standards are described in the chart in Appendix A, and summarised below.

(i) Phase-out Suites

The phase-out term that a suite can qualify for - 1, 2, 4, 7 or 10 years - depends on the number of suites, parking deficiency and ceiling height. Suites qualifying for only 1 and 2 year phase-outs meet very reduced building safety and electrical standards. Phase-outs on 4, 7, and 10 year terms meet a more stringent standard - but still significantly less than full code. Plumbing standards and gas standards are the same for all phase-out terms.

(ii) Permanent, Family, and Moratorium Suites

To become permanent, a suite in a building built before April 1990, when sprinklers began to be required for all one and two family dwellings, needs to meet the reduced standards for 10 year phase-outs, plus install sprinklers to the suite level. Buildings dating from after April 1990 already have full sprinklering, so suites are automatically sprinklered. Family suites have to meet the same standards as permanent suites. Moratorium suites - which are all in older buildings - may become permanent by meeting the 10 year phase-out standards, but do not require sprinklers to the suite level.

(c) Enforcement

In January 1988, Council approved the long term enforcement program for suites. This anticipated that, after notification, owners would choose among the legal options of becoming permanent, phase-out, family, or closing. Their choice would depend on what they were eligible for, and the results of the initial inspection that determined what upgrades would be needed. It was noted at the time that continuing enforcement would be required to make sure that those choosing closure or phase-out remained closed; and that any new suites were registered. Beyond this, it was thought that enforcement on a complaint basis only would be sufficient.

Notwithstanding the focus of the enforcement program, it should be noted that enforcement on the basis of safety hazard also remains an ongoing obligation.

2. Current Suite Compliance and Enforcement

(a) Compliance Levels and Issues

Given the objectives around legalizing suites, after 10 years we hoped to see the majority of suites choose among the legal options. From a housing perspective, it would be desirable if more became permanent suites; fewer chose phase-out or immediate closure. As well, it was hoped that a significant number of new houses in suite areas would include suites, and would do so legally.

Table 1 shows data comparing the numbers of suites existing, and those having permits.

· In suite areas, 35% of houses have suites. Only 22% of the suites have permits;

· In non-suite areas, 14% of houses have suites. Only 14% of the suites have permits;

· In the suite areas, the ratio of permanent to phase-out suites permits is about 4 to 5. However, of the 1,057 permits for permanent suites, only 540 were in older buildings. So amongst older buildings the phase-outs outweigh the permanents by about 3 to 1; and

· The take-up on family suites in the non-suite areas has been low, with most owners in non-suite areas opting for phase-out which requires less upgrading. However, based on experience administering the program staff feel that a significant number of phase-out suites are in fact occupied by family members.

TABLE 1 - CURRENT SUITES STATUS

Area		Total Houses	Total Suites	Legal Suites			Illegal Suites
				Phase-Out	Permanent	Family
Suite Areas [RS-1S, RS-5S]	number % of houses % of suites	30,443* - -	10,516* 35% -	1257** - 12%	1057** - 10%	n.a.	8202 - 78%
Non-suite Areas [RS-1, RS-3, RS-5]	number % of houses % of suites	35,587* - -	4900* 14% -	606** - 12%	-	99** - 2%	4195 - 86%
All Areas	number % of houses % of suites	66,030* - -	15,416* 23% -	1863** - 12%	1057** - 6%	99** - 1%	12,397 - 80%

* = BCAA data as of 1996 ** = City permits data as of December 1998

Note that the data sets are not precisely comparable in date, so the table provides only a broad picture.

For more detail on phase-out suites, refer to Appendix B which contains statistics on numbers of phase-out permits by areas, and what has occurred to phase-out suites whose permits have expired up to December 31, 1998.

Table 2 compares actual suites in new buildings with those having permits, for the period between 1992 to 1996.

· In suite areas, about 26% of new houses have suites, but only 15% of new houses get permits for them. That is, about 60% of the suites have permits. This is better than the overall rate noted above, but still not what it should be.

· In non-suite areas, about 7% of new houses have suites with 1% of the houses obtaining permits for family suites, the only type permitted.

TABLE 2 - SUITES IN NEW BUILDINGS [CONSTRUCTED 1992-96]

		NEW SF BLDGS	WITH SUITES	WITH PERMITS FOR SUITES
Suite Areas	number % of houses % of suites	1935** or 1759* - -	464* 26% -	295** 15% 64%
Non-Suite Areas	number % of houses % of suites	4676* - -	303* 7% -	65 1% 21%

* = BCAA data, ** = City permits data

Note that the data sets are not precisely comparable in date, so the table provides only a broad picture.

In addition, staff are aware of a common practice of building illegal triplexes in new "outright" single family development. Two suites are located on the main floor, with one above - but the design in all technical aspects meets the requirements of single family, e.g., there are no additional kitchens shown. This trend is particularly troubling: while a single secondary suite could conceivably be made legal under the zoning, two suites cannot.

We can speculate about the reasons such a large proportion of suites owners are not choosing to come forward and legalize, or chose phase-out rather than permanent or family suites. One factor may be the ceiling height requirements for permanent suites - a requirement that cannot be met if the original building does not have the headroom. A second may be unwillingness to pay the cost of upgrades, particularly the sprinklers required in permanent and family suites. Thirdly, the inspection done to determine the upgrades needed may identify unsafe conditions in the main dwelling, which the city has no choice but to require be corrected.

With respect to new buildings, the continuing suite creation is positive in terms of providing housing units. However, the continuing rate of illegality is troubling, when it should be quite easy for them to be legal. Again, we can speculate on reasons. Spec homebuilders may regard the costs and effort to meet some of the requirements for a legal suite as not worthwhile in terms of what buyers will pay, e.g., requirement to register a non-strata covenant on title; to provide an electrical panel in a common area; or to provide sound separation. A spec builder in non-suite area cannot get a permit for a family suite because he cannot submit the required affidavit regarding occupancy of the suite and relationship to head of household. New buyers may not be aware of the legal requirements associated with putting in a suite, or may not choose to legalize due to costs versus risk as noted above.

Equally important, the risk of closure is very low, given the City's enforcement policy and the practical enforcement problems outlined below. Owners may well feel that the cost and inconvenience of meeting the suite requirements are greater than the risk of being caught.

Beyond these causes related to City standards and practices, many suite owners may wish to avoid the income and capital gains tax implications of suite ownership, and feel that remaining illegal makes that easier.

(b) Enforcement Issues

The long range enforcement program was described earlier. Closures of registered short-term phase-out suites have occurred as they come due. Enforcement has also continued where staff have become aware of safety hazards, and on complaint. [Statistics compiled between 1993 and 1995 indicate that the program deals with about 65 complaints per month.]

Staff have identified a number of practical problems with enforcement. One is making sure a closed suite stays closed. A house is considered restored to single family if the stove has been removed and the suite appears unoccupied at inspection. It is simple for the suite to be returned to operating condition. Secondly, prosecution or action through the legal system is slow and unrewarding. The fine is often less than the monthly rent of the suite.

Third, suites in buildings existing before 1956, when the Zoning and Development By-law was adopted, present major problems for enforcement. This is because documentation is required from the City to prove the suite is illegal, rather than simply legally non-conforming by virtue of being present before adoption of the by-law. In these cases, the use must be accepted as is, and no upgrading is required other than to remedy hazardous conditions.

Fourth, with respect to enforcement based on safety hazard, infractions can vary: exposed electrical wire, inadequate fire separation between units, no self-closing devices on door, or handrails that are not high enough. Theoretically all are sufficient reason to close a suite, and it is difficult to know where to draw the line.

Fifth, while so many illegal suites continue to exist, it is difficult for the City to effectively enforce the Standards of Maintenance by-law. The City cannot order owners to repair and make livable an illegal suite without appearing to be condoning its use. So they are usually referred to the secondary suite enforcement program, which has to require them to become phase-out, permanent, or to close.

Sixth, the fact that closure of phase-out suites - in both suite and non-suite areas - proceeds while undeclared illegal suites remain without penalty is inequitable. The owners of phase-out suites have complied with the by-laws, and done the work needed to meet the upgrade standards. Their suites are likely in better shape than many of the undeclared ones, and yet they face closure. This inequity strikes at the credibility of the program to legalize suites.

In general, the continuing illegality of so many suites also presents issues for the future, in terms of having reasonable levels of safety and livability in this important housing component, ensuring some stability for tenants, and the city's ability to enforce standards of maintenance.

3. Options for Action

This overview of the current status of suites has shown that too few suites are entering the suite program and taking up the legal options available. In particular, an unacceptable proportion of suites in brand new buildings are being installed illegally, when legality should be relatively easy. It is likely these patterns are due to the owners' or builders' assessment that the cost and inconvenience of meeting the requirements are greater than the likelihood and consequences of being caught. There are also numerous practical difficulties being encountered in enforcement.

There are a number of courses of action open to the City at this point.

Option 1: Continue on the current course: enforce closure of phase-out suites, while taking no action on unregistered suites unless there is an safety hazard or unresolvable complaints.

This results in continued and worsening inequity of enforcement, and does not address the problems of the large number of suites in non-conformity both in older and new buildings. Continuing to allow illegal suites to exist in such numbers, and to increase as new buildings are built, will likely necessitate revisiting of the entire issue in the future.

Option 2: Continue enforcing closure of expired phase-out suites, and increase enforcement efforts on other illegal, undeclared suites.

This would achieve more compliance and lessen the inequity of enforcement because the suites that remained illegal would eventually be closed. However, it could also cause the loss of affordable units, contradicting CityPlan directions on housing variety and affordability. It would not deal positively with the question of why a large number of suites have chosen not to register and conform. Some of these suites may be in reasonable condition, and upgradable. Also, in staff's view, the practical problems of enforcement and limited staff resources would have to be addressed before this approach would be feasible.

Option 3: Extend zoning to allow suites into non-suite areas, which would permit phase-out suites in these areas to become permanent, if the owners wish.

There are a number of reasons that this is not appropriate at this time, although it may be an option for the future. First reviewing the statistics on the proportion of suites which have registered, it is clear that non-declaration is prevalent whether an area is zoned for suites or not. So even if suites were made legal in non-suite areas, it would not address the main issues. Second, a substantial portion of the city is zoned to allow suites, there is no shortage of future housing capacity in this category - about 5000 potential units at current take-up rates. Finally, one of Council's policies in the suite review was to allow suites only in areas that supported them. The non-support of the areas in question was confirmed in two different polls at the time. Any extension of suite zoning is better considered after the Community Vision Program, slated to cover remaining areas by 2004, shows whether there is support. [The recently completed Dunbar Community Vision, for example, did indicate some support for extending the area that allows suites, although support was rather low -52%].

Option 4: Pursue a two-fold strategy of bringing more suites into conformity: reexamining standards and removing barriers wherever appropriate; and developing a more effective enforcement strategy and capability. In the meantime, allow phase-out suites to continue to exist beyond their permit expiry dates. In addition, continue current enforcement on the basis of safety issues and complaints.

In Recommendation A, staff propose pursuing Option 4 since it is most consistent with Council's objectives for secondary suites as noted earlier in the Background section of this report.

A standards review should include:

- consideration of City suite upgrading standards, particularly in light of new standards for suites in the BC building code;
- review of the costs of upgrading [particularly sprinklering] relative to rental income. [The 1989 estimate to upgrade a `70s Vancouver "special" was $2,500 for a 10 year phase-out, and $5,200 for a permanent suite. Recent contractor estimates for sprinklers and electrical work alone range from $3,100 to $7,750.] Related to the issue of cost, and making a review timely, the Provincial government is considering a program to provide financial support for renovations to suites;
- review of standards in other local municipalities which have begun allowing suites in the past 10 years; and
- investigation of reasons so many new houses with suites are installing them without permit.

An enforcement study could include:

- a review of enforcement experience elsewhere;
- initiation of more effective penalties;
- consideration of solutions to enforcement on the pre-1956 buildings; and
- development of a feasible strategy and resourcing for enforcement on those suites which remain illegal after any changes to standards.

Recommendation B is to report back in detail on the work program and timing for the review. Since staff in Permits & Licenses, Building By-law groups, and Planning are fully committed for 1999, the report back will occur in early 2000. The review would require research, including consultant studies; consultation with affected parties - home owners, builders, tenants - and their respective advocacy groups; Council consideration, and possibly a public hearing. Then any changes would need to be put into practice administratively. A preliminary estimate is that this could take until early 2002. See Figure 1.

Figure 1

Recommendation C is to withhold enforcement on phase-out suites for 3 years from the date of adoption of these Recommendations, while the review occurs. Appendix C outlines the details of this measure. It is reasonable to do this to provide phase-out suite owners with the opportunity to take advantage of any changes that result from the work. It does not worsen any conditions for the neighbourhoods in which they are located. Enforcement on the basis of safety and complaints would continue as now. In addition, the recommendation provides the ability for staff to enforce in other unusual circumstances.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

A letter summarizing the content of this report was sent to groups representing the interests of home owners and tenants in the areas where phase-out suites permits would expire before the 3-year period is up.

CONCLUSION

While the City's secondary suite program provides options and standards to allow secondary suites to be legal, a large number of them in both old and new buildings are continuing undeclared and illegal. The reasons appear to be a combination of city standards which owners or builders either cannot or do not wish to meet, with a low risk of enforcement on the part of the City. The 10-year phase-out suites, which have been upgraded to some degree, are beginning to expire. Closing them while not moving on the many undeclared illegal suites will be inequitable. The continuing illegality of so many suites also presents an issue for the future, in terms of having reasonable levels of safety and livability in this important housing component, ensuring some stability for tenants, and the city's ability to enforce standards of maintenance.

Given the City's original objectives with the suite program, as well as the adopted CityPlan directions to ensure housing variety and affordability, staff recommend that Council approve a two-fold approach: re-examining standards, which may lead to lowering of some barriers to legalization; while also finding ways to make enforcement more effective. In the meantime, staff propose allowing expiring phase-out suites to continue to exist for up to 3 years beyond their expiry date, in order to allow time to complete the research, consultation, adoption and implementation of any new regulations or measures. Enforcement on the basis of safety hazard and complaint would continue as now.

* * * * *

CURRENT STANDARDS FOR SECONDARY SUITES [summary]

PHASE-OUT SUITES
BUILDINGS UNDER THESE CONDITIONS			MAY BE	WITH THESE UPGRADES
Number	Parking	Ceiling Height	Time Limit	Building [Safety]	Electrical	Plumbing	Gas
3 or more additional units or		< 6"4"	1 year Phase-out	Waive requirements except: -battery smoke alarms [hardwired if doing other electrical work] -smoke separation between units [existing doors OK if in reasonable operating condition] -self-closing devices on doors between the main dwelling and the suite	Waive requirement for new electrical service except: -visual check for any obvious hazardous conditions throughout units -check main panel for unsafe connections. oversize fuses etc -existing bathroom receptacles must be Ground Fault Circuit Interruptor [GFCI] or razor transformer type	-unauthorized water supply piping may remain if material is approved ad there are no cross connections -unauthorized drain waste and vents may remain if fixtures are properly trapped and there are no visible venting infractions -if inspector suspects that fixtures may not drain to sanitary sewer, then system must be checked and corrected as necessary -temperature and pressure relief valve from water tank must be piped to a safe location -unapproved showers may remain providing the unit is trapped and there are not visible venting infractions. Inside finish must be waterproof and sanitary	No relaxations to Code
2 additional units or	2 spaces deficient [i.e., no on-site parking]	min 6'4"	2 year Phase-out
1 additional unit or	1 space deficient	6'4" , but less than 6'8"	4 Year Phase-out	Waive requirements except: -110 V hard-wired smoke alarm -3/4 hour fire separation between units; or other option as provided for in a permanent suite [gypsum wallboard or lath and plaster in good conditions on ceiling and walls or equivalent] -handrails and guardrails to comply with code -self-closing devices on main doors between the main dwelling and the suite	-visual check for hazardous and unsafe conditions -main service to meet code requirements for single family dwellings using maximum demand for any additional ranges and 100% rating of any additional appliances [i.e. dryer] and electric heating -3 duplex outlines in living room area -2 duplex outlets in each bedroom located on different walls -2 grounded appliance circuits for kitchen counter area and minimum 2 duplex outlets -fridge plug on separate grounded circuit outlet in bathroom and exterior outlets protected by a GFCI
1 additional unit	no deficiency [i.e. 2 spaces]	6'8" but less than 6'10"	7 Year Phase-out
1 additional unit	no deficiency [i.e. 2 spaces]	6'10" or more	10 Year Phase-out
PERMANENT SUITES in buildings built before April 1990 [when sprinklers became mandatory for all new single and two family dwellings].
1 additional unit	no deficiency [i.e. 2 spaces]	6'10" or more	no limit	Per 10 year plus sprinklers on suite level; Moratorium suites: no sprinklers.	As for 10 year	As for 10 year	Full code
PERMANENT SUITES in buildings built after April 1990 [when sprinklers became mandatory for all new single and two family dwellings].
1 additional unit	no deficiency [i.e. 2 spaces]	7'7"	no limit	Full code requirements, including full sprinklers	Full code requirements	Full code requirements	Full code

PHASE-OUT SUITES PERMITS BY AREA TO DECEMBER 31, 1998

AREA	PHASE-OUT PERMITS	10 YEAR EXPIRY DATE
Joyce Station Area	166	April 1, 1989
East Riley Park	206	February 1, 2000
Kitsilano	162	May 1, 2000
Kensington-Cedar Cottage	391	August 31, 2000
Sunset	317	February 1, 2001
Hastings-Sunrise/Grandview Woodland	298	August 15, 2001
West Riley Park	35	March 2, 2002
Renfrew-Collingwood	241	November 2, 2002
Point Grey	90	November 30, 203
Victoria-Fraserview	192	June 1, 2004
Shaughnessy/Marpole/Oakridge	39	March 1, 2005
Dunbar/Kerrisdale	80	August 1, 2005
Other Zones [CD-1]	19	various

OUTCOMES FOR EXPIRED PHASE-OUT SUITES: 1991-1998

	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	TOTAL
Restored to 1 Family	2	42	31	56	12	21	57	25	246
Made Permanent		5		1	5		8	2	21
House Demolished		3	1	3	3	1	2	2	15
Action Pending*			1	4	15	3	27	31	81
TOTAL	2	50	33	64	35	25	94	60	363

* = enforcement either withheld or currently ongoing.

DRAFT ADMINISTRATION BULLETIN

PHASE-OUT SUITES: WITHHOLDING OF ENFORCEMENT PENDING
STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT REVIEW

Authority: City Council Resolution

Effective: [date of resolution]

INTRODUCTION

On [date of resolution] City Council directed staff to review the upgrading standards and enforcement practices for secondary suites. At that time, they approved a resolution intended to allow 4, 7 and 10 year phase-out suites which have met current upgrading standards to remain open during the review.

IMPORTANT NOTES

Phase-out suites qualify for 4, 7 or 10 year terms depending on ceiling height and parking deficiency. They all are required to meet the same level of Building By-law upgrades. In choosing whether to apply for phase-out under 3(b) or 3(c) below, owners need to be aware that the ceiling height and parking requirements may or may not change as a result of the Standards and Enforcement Review, i.e., there is no guarantee that at the end of the review their particular suite will benefit. They need to bear this uncertainty in mind when they make their decisions on whether to invest in the required upgrades.

Enforcement will still occur in cases of safety hazard. There also may arise other circumstances which will result in enforcement and require the closure of a suite in the discretion of the Chief Licence Inspector.

DIRECTIVES

All of the following directives apply only to suites that qualified, or qualify, to be 4, 7 or 10 year phase-out suites, and which meet, or will meet, the 4/7/10 year standard of upgrading. There will be no withholding of enforcement for 1 and 2 year phase-out suites.

1. Phase-out suites with permits expiring between [date of resolution] and

[3 years from date of resolution]

Withhold enforcement on use to [3 years from date of resolution]. Upgrades by the permit must be completed or be ongoing.

2. Former phase-out suites, i.e., those whose permits

expired before [date of resolution].

Withhold enforcement to March 31, 2002 if upgrades required by the permit were completed.

3. Illegal Suites dealt with during the Review

(a) In areas still within the original 10-year period from area notification:

Suites which qualify to be 4, 7 or 10-year phase-outs may still obtain a phase-out permit if they undertake to complete the 4/7/10-year upgrades. The permit will be dated to expire on [3 years from date of resolution] or on the area's 10 year date, whichever is later.

(b) In areas where the original 10 year period from area notification has passed:

Suites which qualify to be 4, 7, or 10-year phase-outs may still obtain a phase-out permit if they undertake to complete the 4/7/10-year upgrades. The permit will be dated to expire on [3 years from date of resolution].

4. Business Licences and Water Rates

Business licences will continue to be required for suites where enforcement is being withheld under 1 and 2 above. Water rate fees will also continue to be charged.

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver