Demolition & Construction Waste Management Industry Feedback Form

Transcription

1 December 14, 2011 Esther Bérubé, P.Eng. Project Engineer Solid Waste Department - Zero Waste Implementation Metro Vancouver 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, B.C. V5H 4G8 Re: 2011 Consultation on recycling space in Multi-Family and Commercial buildings Dear Esther: NAIOP is an industry organization representing the interests of developers and owners of industrial, office and commercial real estate. The Vancouver Chapter of NAIOP is the leading advocacy group for over 1400 local members who comprise commercial and industry real estate developers, owners, investors, mangers and providers of commercial real-estate services including brokers, property managers, design consultants across the Metro Vancouver region. Commercial real estate is a direct, vital and major contributor to the British Columbia economy. The vast majority of business and consumer economic output within the Lower Mainland is housed in commercial real estate. The industry, with the support of NAIOP-Vancouver, continues to play a key role in enhancing the economic vitality and competitiveness of our province We are pleased to provide feedback on behalf of our members on the draft model bylaws to increase recycling in the multi-family, commercial, and construction / demolition sectors. Our feedback is presented in the form of the Industry Feedback Forms supplied to NAIOP. Demolition & Construction Waste Management Industry Feedback Form The following topics and questions have been raised in previous consultation and are intended to guide feedback: Topic 1: Eligible, excused and exempt projects Do you have any comments regarding: Types of projects that are recommended to be subject to this bylaw? Response: NAIOP recommends that all projects subject to the issuance of a building, demolition or renovation permit should be subject to the bylaw.

2 Exempt projects and those excused from fully complying with the bylaw? Response: We agree that the exemption to projects with values of less than $50,000 contained in the draft bylaw is a reasonable approach as well as the proposed exemption for emergency work. Phasing-in activities that have lower diversion rates first, such as single-family demolition? Response: We do not recommend phasing-in of any particular market segment in order to maximize the potential revenue sources available to recycling facilities to help ensure the success of the program in achieving the target diversion rates and encouraging new markets for recycling of currently disallowed materials. Topic 2: Targeted Recyclables and Hazardous Materials Are there currently enough licensed facilities, excluding landfills, to provide a sufficient number of reliable drop-off sites for DLC materials across the region? Response: In examining the map provided as part of the Backgrounder, it would appear that there are enough facilities to serve the region purely from a geographic location standpoint. NAIOP is unable to comment on the fact of whether there is available physical space and capacity in these facilities. Should the list of facilities licensed by Metro Vancouver be expanded to include all facilities that accept recyclable materials under the proposed municipal DLC bylaw? Response: NAIOP agrees with this suggestion. Topic 3: Fees Is the recommended level of refundable fees adequate to stimulate the desired behaviour change? Response: NAIOP believes that the fees have been set at the appropriate level to encourage behavior change with becoming a significant additional burden to developers. NAIOP would however like to point out that the majority of the cost burden associated with this initiative will be the additional administrative expense required by builders and developers to track and report the data required to enable the processing of refunds. How could municipalities reduce the impact from refundable fees on the industry? Response: Although NAIOP is encouraged that Metro has taken the approach of refundable fees, NAIOP would recommend that 100% of the fee be refundable recognizing that there are nonrecoverable administrative cost burdens for all parties involved and that the stated purpose fee is security to ensure compliance with a bylaw not to cover administrative burdens of applying a Metro Policy initiative.

3 Topic 4: Application requirements and approval process How can administrative duties be simplified for permit applicants and municipalities? Response: NAIOP strongly recommends that items 7b) and 7c) in the draft bylaw be removed to ease the burden upon the applicant and to remove uncertainty over a lack of clarity over what additional documentation can be requested by the Building Official. Can contractors describe intended plans for reuse of building materials in a way that Building Officials can approve? Response: NAIOP does not believe this to be necessary as any materials re-used on site will not be captured in the offsite disposal records. Topic 5: Compliance How will small projects, such as a single-family residential construction, track and provide proof of recycling? Response: NAIOP believes that small projects should not be exempt from the bylaw and that it will not be an undue burden to track offsite haulage documentation via the disposal companies who are familiar with such tracking methods from their wide application on LEED projects throughout the industry. How can all contractors be encouraged to obtain applicable permits and comply with all requirements? Response: NAIOP believes that the bylaw contains adequate enforcement penalties to encourage contractors to obtain the applicable permits and ensure compliance from the majority of industry participants. Are there cases where receipts or photos would not be available to prove that material was reused? Response: Please refer to NAIOP s response under Topic 4. NAIOP is strongly encouraging that photos not be required as part of documentation to be submitted and that documentation should be limited to receipts and other written records. Multi-Family and Commercial Building Recycling Space Industry Feedback Form Topic 1: Eligible, excused and exempt projects Are the requirements appropriate for building alterations and for high-density areas? Response: Due to the difficulty in expanding the size of the cores and service areas of existing commercial and retail buildings, NAIOP is not in support of the application of the standards to

4 projects involving minor additions or renovations, changes of use or in the case where repairs are required due to a catastrophic event. Which projects should be allowed to submit alternative approaches? Response: NAIOP recommends that if projects involving minor additions or renovations, changes of use or in the case where repairs are required due to catastrophic events are not exempt that these projects should be allowed to submit alternative approaches. Topic 2: Recycling storage space requirements How do the recycling storage space allocation requirements compare to what is currently being built? Response: This is a difficult question to respond to as most municipalities do not regulate the amount of recycling space in zoning bylaws and the amount of space is often left to the discretion of design professionals using their best judgement and common best practice in consultation with local building department officials. Would excluding the recycling storage space allocated on the ground floor from Floor Space Ratio requirements be a worthwhile incentive? Response: NAIOP supports this proposal as storage spaces are often excluded from FSR and FSR calculations in zoning bylaws. Should allocation of in-suite recycling storage space be required? Response: NAIOP is not supportive of the inclusion of a requirement for dedicated in-suite storage spaces as there is often ample crush space within a commercial building that can accommodate the placement of bins for temporary storage without the need to create a separate dedicated space. Topic 3: Vehicle access and loading area Would it be a worthwhile incentive to exclude space allocated within the property for collection vehicle access and loading from Floor Space Ratio requirements, if it exceeds what is required for fire truck access? Response: NAIOP would support this proposal in full. If recycling totes/bins cannot be stored temporarily on public streets/alleyways, where can they be stored on collection day if the permanent storage area is too far away for collection crews? Response: NAIOP supports the notion that temporary storage of totes/bins should be allowed on public streets/alleyways in collection days. As an example, the City of Toronto currently allows this practice. How far are collection crews willing to travel on foot to retrieve recycling totes/bins from the permanent recycling storage area to the loading area?

5 Response: NAIOP cannot provide input to this question. Topic 4: Compliance How could municipalities confirm that recycling space and access requirements have been respected during construction? Response: NAIOP contends that municipalities have all of the tools they presently require to ensure conformance as part of the normal building/occupancy permit process. After occupancy, how could municipalities confirm that recycling storage and/or loading space are being used for the intended purpose? Response: NAIOP does not see a need for municipalities to confirm this beyond the granting of an occupancy permit. NAIOP believes that the private and public sector operators of facilities have the required skillset to manage the use of the spaces provided in an effective manner. In exchange for reducing storage area requirements, municipalities may require letters of assurance from developers guaranteeing that the property will receive more frequent collection from private haulers. How could building owners and managers be informed and held accountable to these conditions? Response: NAIOP does not see a need for municipalities to police this particular item for enforcement. Nuisance bylaws exist in each jurisdiction that could be applied to any issue of nonconformance. Gordon Wylie 2012 Development Issues and Government Relations Chair NAIOP