BC Provincial Government Housing Policies 2023

[jollyburger]

RE: public hearings on new developments.

The City of North Vancouver will no longer allow residents to address council during the weekly public input period if they are planning to speak about a specific residential rezoning.

City staff and the mayor began enforcing the new ban at the April 22 meeting, citing a 2023 provincial law change that has prohibited municipalities from holding public hearings for rezonings when the proposals are consistent with an official community plan.

City solicitor Heidi Granger told council the change to extend the ban to the weekly public input period, which typically allows residents to sign up and speak for two minutes at the outset of a meeting, was necessary to shield the municipality from legal risk.

“A public input period may then be characterized by somebody who wants to challenge the lawful work of the city on the basis that the city did, in fact, hold a prohibited public hearing,” she said. “Our recommendation, which may be cautious but it is a recommendation based on [outside legal] advice as well, is not to receive verbal submissions.”

Going forward, if residents want council to know their thoughts on a residential rezoning, they will have to send their comments to the city in writing, not deliver them verbally in the council chamber, and no later than noon on the day that the rezoning is coming before council.

The intent of the province’s ban on public hearings was to remove a hindrance to new housing being approved but several council members said the change has become a hindrance to them doing their jobs.

https://www.nsnews.com/local-news/ci...pments-8675065

[Vin]

It looks like a war on Nimbys is finally taking place.

[Changing City]

An interesting take by West Vancouver on the Bill 44 SSMUH requirements, reported by the Vancouver Market blog. The vast majority of their lots are not subject to the legislation since “the definition of “Restricted Zone”….does not encompass parcels that permit single-family dwelling, secondary suites and detached secondary suites (coach house). Consequently, the District’s RS1-5 and RS7-10 zones are not “Restricted Zones” and not subject to SSMUH requirements.” Only 222 parcels will be affected by the proposed zoning.

Below is a map, outline in orange, those single family lots which are within 400 metres of frequent bus service and therefore will require update to allow up to 6-units.


[source in link, above]

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

An interesting take by West Vancouver on the Bill 44 SSMUH requirements, reported by the Vancouver Market blog. The vast majority of their lots are not subject to the legislation since “the definition of “Restricted Zone”….does not encompass parcels that permit single-family dwelling, secondary suites and detached secondary suites (coach house). Consequently, the District’s RS1-5 and RS7-10 zones are not “Restricted Zones” and not subject to SSMUH requirements.” Only 222 parcels will be affected by the proposed zoning.

I wouldn't be surprised if the DWV has some very skilled lawyer residents who are active in contacting their elected officials.

To be honest, it does seem like most of the "SFH" lots in West Van would be exempt given the wording of the act.

Prepare for the landslide of municipalities that start to find other legal exceptions. The DNV also has similar laws for basement suites + coach houses.

Local Government Act

"restricted zone" means,

(a) for the purposes of subsection (3), a zone in respect of which the permitted residential use would, but for this section, be restricted to detached single-family dwellings, and

(b) for the purposes of subsections (4) and (5), a zone in respect of which the permitted residential use would, but for this section, be restricted to

(i) detached single-family dwellings,

(ii) detached single-family dwellings with one additional housing unit located within the detached single-family dwelling or on the same parcel or parcels of land on which the detached single-family dwelling is located,

(iii) duplexes, or

(iv) duplexes with one additional housing unit located within each dwelling comprising the duplex or no more than 2 additional housing units on the same parcel or parcels of land on which the duplex is located,

[jollyburger]

RE: TOD exemptions

"The Province is not considering exemptions to the TOA designations across BC that were established last year," the Ministry said. "The purpose of the legislation and the TOA designations is to ensure that appropriate densities are being achieved on all eligible properties that are zoned for residential purposes adjacent to high quality transit nodes like Brentwood Station."

The Ministry did not explain why it would not be considering exemptions, but even the consideration of Burnaby's petition for an exemption would likely open the door for numerous other cities to follow suit and seek out exemptions of their own.

The Ministry also said that Bill 47 is meant to guide land-use planning over the long-term and that new development within the TOD areas will be happening gradually over a number of years. It also emphasized the importance of adding housing around SkyTrain stations, whether it be for residents commuting to school or work or for seniors who need alternatives to driving.

The Ministry also pointed out that Bill 47 is not mandating that entire transit-oriented areas have to rise to the minimum heights and densities it has prescribed.

"In TOAs, developers are not required to build to the minimum density requirements," said the Ministry. "This legislation is about saying that local governments can't deny a project based on height and density if it's in the standards set in TOA legislation. TOA legislation provides an 'envelope' for development with an allowable range of densities and heights that can be achieved within a given TOA."

https://storeys.com/burnaby-brentwoo...ent-exemption/

[cornholio]

Haven’t posted in a long time as I haven’t lived in vancouver for years and just visit family now but do need to comment.

Edit: on my phone and see typos etc. of on a position to fix it so sorry

The forcing of high densities around skytrains stations is ridiculous and doesn’t accomplish anything beyond in my opinion further degrading the quality of life in the city.

Skytrain lines do not have sufficient capacity and are already not far from their limits. The infrastructure simply isn’t there to support double triple densities and given current finances and political culture within Canada/BC/Vancouver it would take decades to catch up if there was a colossal change in priorities today.

It is rather simple math. So why focus on skytrain stations to try to increase densities to such a point where those skytrain stations are actually unable to handle them? You would be better off allowing densities to increase everywhere to better spread the load and you would have a better chance of actually not overloading stations that have zero chance of increasing their capacity.

It’s as if no one does the math. If you want x percent of people using transit in an area capacity must be able to meet the demand else you crate an incredibly difficult problem to solve.

I live in a city about 2 thirds the size of Vancouver with probably five or six times the transit capacity and metro networks that can move double the volume of people but as transit use significantly higher at around 60% of trips the systems are still nearly overloaded. So guess what density is limited and held back around many metro/train/tram/rapid bus stops when those stops are at capacity. Instead development is targeted to areas that actually have a chance of being properly served by transit with enough capacity even if it’s a double articulated bus that runs every 3 min and in the future with funding and planing a metro line can be built.

What I am saying is sky train in Vancouver simply doesn’t have the capacity for much more density around stations then there already is. Better of spreading it out and for sure focusing on increasing transit capacity everywhere be it with high capacity buses and bus lanes if need be (after all once sky train capacity is exhausted and you stick in a bus ever 3 min then what? The sky train simple is lower capacity mass transit system).

Also not saying to not build anything, organically there is lots of growth I see around new stations but what they are trying to do is force double triple densities just like that..the math doesn’t work.

[cornholio]

And just to add the housing crisis is artificially created via policy (annd I don’t mean zoning policy). Everyone knows the problem (I hope) and the solution even if temporary is so easy. In any case no point in discussing. I did my part and helped with the “housing crisis” when I analyzed trends and decided to move me and my family and business out 7ish years ago.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by cornholio

The forcing of high densities around skytrains stations is ridiculous and doesn’t accomplish anything beyond in my opinion further degrading the quality of life in the city.

Skytrain lines do not have sufficient capacity and are already not far from their limits. The infrastructure simply isn’t there to support double triple densities and given current finances and political culture within Canada/BC/Vancouver it would take decades to catch up if there was a colossal change in priorities today.

It is rather simple math. So why focus on skytrain stations to try to increase densities to such a point where those skytrain stations are actually unable to handle them? You would be better off allowing densities to increase everywhere to better spread the load and you would have a better chance of actually not overloading stations that have zero chance of increasing their capacity.

It’s as if no one does the math. If you want x percent of people using transit in an area capacity must be able to meet the demand else you crate an incredibly difficult problem to solve.

I live in a city about 2 thirds the size of Vancouver with probably five or six times the transit capacity and metro networks that can move double the volume of people but as transit use significantly higher at around 60% of trips the systems are still nearly overloaded. So guess what density is limited and held back around many metro/train/tram/rapid bus stops when those stops are at capacity. Instead development is targeted to areas that actually have a chance of being properly served by transit with enough capacity even if it’s a double articulated bus that runs every 3 min and in the future with funding and planing a metro line can be built.

What I am saying is sky train in Vancouver simply doesn’t have the capacity for much more density around stations then there already is. Better of spreading it out and for sure focusing on increasing transit capacity everywhere be it with high capacity buses and bus lanes if need be (after all once sky train capacity is exhausted and you stick in a bus ever 3 min then what? The sky train simple is lower capacity mass transit system).

Also not saying to not build anything, organically there is lots of growth I see around new stations but what they are trying to do is force double triple densities just like that..the math doesn’t work.

Prague has almost 3 times the population density of Metro Vancouver. Density is currently being held back here, and no line in the Skytrain system is anywhere near the maximum designed pphpd capacity.

The Canada Line is currently peaking at 6,500 pphpd when the designed maximum capacity is 15,000 pphpd.
The Expo Line is currently peaking at just under 15,000 pphpd when the currently predicted maximum capacity is just under 30,000 pphpd.

We have one Skytrain extension under construction with completion in 2026/2027, one in pre-construction with planned completion around 2028, and an entire new line in pre-business case right now. Yeah, I think we can handle some gentle density around transit hubs.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Also not saying to not build anything, organically there is lots of growth I see around new stations but what they are trying to do is force double triple densities just like that..the math doesn’t work.

No development is being 'forced' around SkyTrain stations, it's just being allowed to develop, rather than being forced to be further away from SkyTrain station because some (but not all) stations had very low density zoning in place very close to the stations. And the densities aren't particularly high, although some municipalities might chose to allow more.

And the new legislation doesn't only reference rail transit, it also requires higher densities and different housing forms near frequent bus service too, and as that's widespread across the region, so is the newly created development potential.

Only 7 places have a 60% transit mode share - the highest are Seoul at 66% and Hong Kong at 77%. Vancouver only had 15% commuting by transit in 2021 (although it's recovered a bit since then), so it has huge potential to increase that.

[GMD]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Prague has almost 3 times the population density of Metro Vancouver. Density is currently being held back here, and no line in the Skytrain system is anywhere near the maximum designed pphpd capacity.

The Canada Line is currently peaking at 6,500 pphpd when the designed maximum capacity is 15,000 pphpd.
The Expo Line is currently peaking at just under 15,000 pphpd when the currently predicted maximum capacity is just under 30,000 pphpd.

We have one Skytrain extension under construction with completion in 2026/2027, one in pre-construction with planned completion around 2028, and an entire new line in pre-business case right now. Yeah, I think we can handle some gentle density around transit hubs.

I don't understand why someone would leave the city years ago, but still be so invested as to post a bunch of obviously untrue stuff about the city. Everything you said is true, and on top of that, we are still 10% below 2019 volumes, with the busiest corridors (routes into downtown in morning and afternoon commute) down much more than that due to work from home.

Or you can look at stations like Brentwood and Burquitlam that have seen tons of development - to much higher floor counts than the provincial rules require - and yeah, they have seen some bump in ridership, but nothing anywhere remotely close to testing the limits of the capacity of the system.

I mean, if people don't like immigrants, or don't like change, or don't like density, or don't like tall buildings, or whatever, just own it and state it outright, rather than making up pretend reasons - you can't really have a discussion unless people are honest about their motivations.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Prague has almost 3 times the population density of Metro Vancouver. Density is currently being held back here, and no line in the Skytrain system is anywhere near the maximum designed pphpd capacity.

The Canada Line is currently peaking at 6,500 pphpd when the designed maximum capacity is 15,000 pphpd.
The Expo Line is currently peaking at just under 15,000 pphpd when the currently predicted maximum capacity is just under 30,000 pphpd.

We have one Skytrain extension under construction with completion in 2026/2027, one in pre-construction with planned completion around 2028, and an entire new line in pre-business case right now. Yeah, I think we can handle some gentle density around transit hubs.

Is that Canada Line max capacity based on getting more frequent/longer trains? It seems pretty packed already.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Is that Canada Line max capacity based on getting more frequent/longer trains? It seems pretty packed already.

Yes, it's based on 3 car trains at maximum headway. And as we all know, the Canada Line is considered the underbuilt Skytrain line.

Bear in mind, Bill 47 won't have as huge an impact on the Canada Line; The only stations that are currently surrounded by low density residential are King Ed, Oakridge, and Langara-49th.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Changing City

No development is being 'forced' around SkyTrain stations, it's just being allowed to develop, rather than being forced to be further away from SkyTrain station because some (but not all) stations had very low density zoning in place very close to the stations. And the densities aren't particularly high, although some municipalities might chose to allow more.

And the new legislation doesn't only reference rail transit, it also requires higher densities and different housing forms near frequent bus service too, and as that's widespread across the region, so is the newly created development potential.

Only 7 places have a 60% transit mode share - the highest are Seoul at 66% and Hong Kong at 77%. Vancouver only had 15% commuting by transit in 2021 (although it's recovered a bit since then), so it has huge potential to increase that.

Not to mention that the Provincial FSR is quite low.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Yes, it's based on 3 car trains at maximum headway. And as we all know, the Canada Line is considered the underbuilt Skytrain line.

Bear in mind, Bill 47 won't have as huge an impact on the Canada Line; The only stations that are currently surrounded by low density residential are King Ed, Oakridge, and Langara-49th.

It should be added that all three of those stations are densifying and had plans in place well before Bill 47. Bill 47 just increases the available area for density surrounding King Ed and Lanagara-49th, which probably would have happened eventually on buildout of the current plans.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by GMD

I mean, if people don't like immigrants, or don't like change, or don't like density, or don't like tall buildings, or whatever, just own it and state it outright, rather than making up pretend reasons - you can't really have a discussion unless people are honest about their motivations.

Yeah, the whole thing stinks of "I prefer five-floor buildings..." which as recently as a few years ago, weren't legal in many parts of Vancouver either.

Put the largest amounts of people near the highest-capacity people movers - it's a no-brainer.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yeah, the whole thing stinks of "I prefer five-floor buildings..." which as recently as a few years ago, weren't legal in many parts of Vancouver either.

Still illegal in somewhere around 80%+ of Vancouver.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Still illegal in somewhere around 80%+ of Vancouver.

Not as much as that. Even before the Broadway Plan and the Cambie Corridor Plan only 65% of Vancouver was zoned RS or RT, (and that includes all the land in those zones that are used as parks and schools).

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Not as much as that. Even before the Broadway Plan and the Cambie Corridor Plan only 65% of Vancouver was zoned RS or RT, (and that includes all the land in those zones that are used as parks and schools).

Don't forget most Commercial C zones, Industrial I zones, many of the RM zones, a lot of the CD zones, the HA zones, and of course the horrible FSD zone. Even RM-4 which is the most common RM zone doesn't allow 5 stories unless it's 100% social housing (lol).

I also wouldn't be surprised if you wanted to buy Bentall 5 or any downtown CD zoning lots with towers to tear them down and build 5 story apartments you wouldn't be allowed either.

I'm sticking with 80%+.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Don't forget most Commercial C zones, Industrial I zones, many of the RM zones, a lot of the CD zones, the HA zones, and of course the horrible FSD zone. Even RM-4 which is the most common RM zone doesn't allow 5 stories unless it's 100% social housing (lol).

I also wouldn't be surprised if you wanted to buy Bentall 5 or any downtown CD zoning lots with towers to tear them down and build 5 story apartments you wouldn't be allowed either.

I'm sticking with 80%+.

C zones now allow 6 storeys for rental, (and C3-A allows condos too), and many of the RM zones do too. There are industrial buildings of 5 storeys going up in I-2 along Clark Drive and in Mount Pleasant. Your Bentall example is just BS. It's already 5 storeys, (and has 26 more as well) - but you couldn't replace it with apartments at any height, as it's in the CBD.

You stick with anything you want to - but developers are allowed to build five (or more) storeys in a lot more than 20% of Vancouver these days.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

C zones now allow 6 storeys for rental, (and C3-A allows condos too), and many of the RM zones do too. There are industrial buildings of 5 storeys going up in I-2 along Clark Drive and in Mount Pleasant. Your Bentall example is just BS. It's already 5 storeys, (and has 26 more as well) - but you couldn't replace it with apartments at any height, as it's in the CBD.

You stick with anything you want to - but developers are allowed to build five (or more) storeys in a lot more than 20% of Vancouver these days.

I don't think you realise you're making my point for me. We're obviously not talking about office and industrial buildings in the housing thread. It is what it is.