BC Provincial Government Housing Policies 2023

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by csbvan

If municipal policy is too restrictive for SSMUH it can be overruled by the Province. In which case, I assume they will impose

the regulations shown in the guidelines.

Agreed that's how it'll go over time, but I don't think that'll be in the cards any time soon - most likely through the Housing Supply Act/housing targets or as part of future policy reviews when checking in on the status of the success of the program. I just wish they did it preemptively rather than reactively. Part of me almost wonders if this is intentional, to give cities more time to adapt to this change - start with having to allow 3-6 units within existing building envelopes and parking requirements, which will have limited viability and therefore takeup, and then gradually relax requirements to increase takeup after cities have had more time to plan for infrastructure, etc.

The regulations are referenced in the guidelines (i.e. the Local Government Zoning Bylaw Regulation is referenced on page 8 of the SSMUH Policy Manual (https://news.gov.bc.ca/files/SSMUH_Provincial_Policy_Manual_with_Alt_Text.pdf) and the Designation of Transit-Oriented Areas Regulation and Local Government Transit-Oriented Areas Regulation on page 2 of the TOA Policy Manual (https://news.gov.bc.ca/files/TOAProvincialPolicyManual.pdf), but the actual legal text itself doesn't appear to be available - they don't come up on google, and the links that are ostensibly supposed to go to the regulations just take you to the "BC Laws" landing page. The webpage for the announcement (https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2023HOUS0171-001945) has this and the "Local Government Housing Initiatives" webpage even says "coming soon". For example, the TOA Policy Manual says the regulations will have the specific coordinates to measure the 200-800m rings around SkyTrain stations, but they're not listed in the Policy Manual itself.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Small but important quibble: Bill 47 is just on its first reading. Until it receives Royal Assent, it isn't in force.

It received Royal Assent on November 30 - you can track the progress of all bills on this page: https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-busi...ment/4th-session/bills/progress-of-bills.

In fact, the Policy Manuals released on Thursday included the Provincially-imposed Transit-Oriented Areas (TOAs) for transit stations and hubs across the Province. You can read more about them on the Local Government Housing Initiatives page (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housi...ernments-and-housing/housing-initiatives) and even see the maps showing the TOAs that take effect immediately (min. max. heights & densities & no residential parking minimums) - here's Rutland Exchange's in Kelowna!: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/housin...lowna_rutland_exchange_toa_map_day_1.pdf

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

It received Royal Assent on November 30 - you can track the progress of all bills on this page: https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-busi...ment/4th-session/bills/progress-of-bills.

In fact, the Policy Manuals released on Thursday included the Provincially-imposed Transit-Oriented Areas (TOAs) for transit stations and hubs across the Province. You can read more about them on the Local Government Housing Initiatives page (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housi...ernments-and-housing/housing-initiatives) and even see the maps showing the TOAs that take effect immediately (min. max. heights & densities & no residential parking minimums) - here's Rutland Exchange's in Kelowna!: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/housin...lowna_rutland_exchange_toa_map_day_1.pdf

There are a few maps missing. Although Burrard and Yaletown really aren't relevent, as there's already more density and (subject to shadowing on parks) height. Main St - Science World is probably the same, but Commercial-Broadway will impact quite a bit of existing low density development.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by Changing City

There are a few maps missing. Although Burrard and Yaletown really aren't relevent, as there's already more density and (subject to shadowing on parks) height. Main St - Science World is probably the same, but Commercial-Broadway will impact quite a bit of existing low density development.

Yes, it's the eastern stations that will change the most. The biggest changes I assume will come from Nanaimo, 29th, and possibly Rupert and Renfrew. Especially Nanaimo though. There really are a lot of 20 storey sites in the 200m radius that are currently single-family homes. They just seem so ripe for redevelopment, and land prices there are relatively cheap.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Changing City

There are a few maps missing. Although Burrard and Yaletown really aren't relevent, as there's already more density and (subject to shadowing on parks) height. Main St - Science World is probably the same, but Commercial-Broadway will impact quite a bit of existing low density development.

Those stations don't have maps for them because they're not among those identified proactively by the Province.

They're doing the Transit-Oriented Areas (TOAs) in two steps: one batch now, identified and mapped by the Province that go into effect immediately, and the second batch that cities will have to map and adopt themselves by June 30, 2024. You can see all stations/exchanges (in both stages) in the last few pages of their Policy Manual summary (https://news.gov.bc.ca/files/HousingGuidelines_Regs_SummarySlides_V2.pdf) which identifies which are in effect immediately and which will have to be done by cities.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Thanks for the explanation.

Very interesting choice of priorities. While I entirely agree that Mission City Station should've been upzoned twenty years ago, it's curious that it gets the Thanos Snap, and yet Commercial-Broadway or Royal Oak don't.

[logan5]

So the provincial multi-plex rules differ from what the CoV had planned. The SSMU guidance for lots near transit (Within 400m of frequent transit) specifies that a lot greater than 280 sq meters (3014 sq feet) are eligible for 6 units. The vast majority of house lots in Vancouver are 33' wide or greater, so this policy would cover a huge area of Vancouver. This differs from the CoV policy, where 33' lots would only be eligible for 4 units.

There's another policy that covers house lots greater/less than 1215 sq meters. That has to be a mistake.

Thanks for posting the links by the way.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Thanks for the explanation.

Very interesting choice of priorities. While I entirely agree that Mission City Station should've been upzoned twenty years ago, it's curious that it gets the Thanos Snap, and yet Commercial-Broadway or Royal Oak don't.

The ones done preemptively by the Province were very strange indeed. In all their materials they claimed that the ones they'd choose would be those with TOD-like plans already while those without them would get the extra time until the end of June to come up with their own, but lots of those selected stations don't have TOD plans and lots of unselected stations do. Obviously something else going on.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

So the provincial multi-plex rules differ from what the CoV had planned. The SSMU guidance for lots near transit (Within 400m of frequent transit) specifies that a lot greater than 280 sq meters (3014 sq feet) are eligible for 6 units. The vast majority of house lots in Vancouver are 33' wide or greater, so this policy would cover a huge area of Vancouver. This differs from the CoV policy, where 33' lots would only be eligible for 4 units.

There's another policy that covers house lots greater/less than 1215 sq meters. That has to be a mistake.

There are three different scenarios. Anywhere within an urban containment boundary in any BC jurisdiction, municipalities must allow up to four units on any lot. If the lots are below 1,215 sq m, then 50% of the lot can be covered. For lots larger than that, only 40% can be covered. Parking is required at 1 space/1 unit, or 1 space/2 units if within 800 metres of a transit stop with frequent service.

For lots greater than 280 sq m within 400m of a bus stop with at least one route providing frequent transit service, then they can have up to six units, and they're not required to provide any parking.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

The ones done preemptively by the Province were very strange indeed. In all their materials they claimed that the ones they'd choose would be those with TOD-like plans already while those without them would get the extra time until the end of June to come up with their own, but lots of those selected stations don't have TOD plans and lots of unselected stations do. Obviously something else going on.

And some that were included, like Waterfront Station, really has no undeveloped TOD potential, and zoning is in place for more density than the Province are looking for, so it didn't need to be in the first batch at all.

[Migrant_Coconut]

A more cynical observer would note that it's mostly the swing ridings being fast-tracked; they're playing it safe with the NDP strongholds.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

A more cynical observer would note that it's mostly the swing ridings being fast-tracked; they're playing it safe with the NDP strongholds.

It wouldn't make sense to upset swing ridings...?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Maybe they're hoping to create a wedge issue? Hell if I know.

[GlassCity]

I'd be surprised. In the big picture, it barely matters - the legislated TOA policies (min. max. heights, densities, and no parking requirements) will apply the same to all of them, and by June 30, 2024 at the latest for the rest of them. Just like an 8-month gap.

[djmk]

I'm surprised Capilano bus exchange is a TOD. I don't think there is much space for more housing up there

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by djmk

I'm surprised Capilano bus exchange is a TOD. I don't think there is much space for more housing up there

Depends on which exchange we're talking about - if it's the new one beside the Bosa Centre, there's a lot of vacant lots and parking that could easily become student dorms.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by djmk

I'm surprised Capilano bus exchange is a TOD. I don't think there is much space for more housing up there

There are a lot of older townhouses and low-rise buildings on Purcell, for example, that could handle much higher density if they were to be redeveloped.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Although I'd like to caution against overdensifying the area until Cap finally gets a gondola. Taking a bus to/from Phibbs through Keith Road is already painfully slow as-is.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Although I'd like to caution against overdensifying the area until Cap finally gets a gondola. Taking a bus to/from Phibbs through Keith Road is already painfully slow as-is.

Yes, there'd need to be upgraded transit into the area to support higher density. One relatively simple solution could be to add a westbound shoulder transit lane from Exit 23 to exit 22B. The 245 could then go east on Main and use the on/off-ramps as a faster route to Lillooet Road.

[GMD]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Although I'd like to caution against overdensifying the area until Cap finally gets a gondola. Taking a bus to/from Phibbs through Keith Road is already painfully slow as-is.

I suggested a Gondola for Cap on here a while back and got a lot of pushback, but I do think it makes a ton of sense. I feel like once/if the province finally gets it together to build the gondola to SFU, then people will see how much of am improvement it is and momentum will build to get one for Cap as well.