BC Provincial Government Housing Policies 2023

[Changing City]

We seem to be discussing the wide-ranging changes proposed by the provincial government in threads about transit, and one about EcoDensity in Vancouver, and neither seem to be appropriate given how dramatic the changes might be, if adopted, so I'm suggesting a new thread.

To kick it off, if anybody wants to read the legislation, rather than the interpretation on blogs or in the press, here is Bill 44, (Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act.

That's the legislation that proposes that municipalities must adopt an ODP that reflects what can be built, and prevents them from holding a public inquiry if a project then meets the ODP.

It also requires that the "official community plan of the council of a municipality must provide for at least the 20-year total number of housing units required to meet anticipated housing needs, which total number is included in the most recent housing needs report".

It requires that after June 30 2024 municipalities and councils must allow one, or both of an 'additional housing unit within a detached dwelling that would otherwise be a single-family dwelling'. They also must allow at least one additional housing unit within another building on the same parcel. They can't require parking for those additional units.

Bill 46 is the Housing Finance (Residential Development) Amendment Act that allows municipalities (and other service providers) to apply an amenity cost charge to recover the costs of additional infrastructure and facilities. “An amenity cost charge that is payable under a bylaw under this section must be paid at the time of the approval of the subdivision or the issue of the building permit”. (In future the deal like the one that Anthem got to start building their W Georgia tower but defer the CAC would have to have the Minister’s approval).

"An amenity cost charge is not payable in relation to a development for any class of affordable housing".

Bill 47 is the Housing Statutes (Transit-oriented areas) Amendment Act. That’s the bill that requires municipality's plans to allow up to 20 storeys and 5 FAR 200m from a Skytrain station, 12 storeys and 4 FAR up to 400m and 8 storeys and 3 FAR up to 800m. There are other transportation hubs that will require specified densities within a 400m radius, but exactly where those are located isn’t yet clear.

The Province will create a provincial policy manual to support municipalities with setting their site standards and moving forward with proposed housing projects, which will be available in December. Within those rings municipalities can’t require residential parking, except to accommodate people living with disabilities.

Interestingly, the three pieces of legislation linked above don’t appear to include mention of the 4-plex and “six dwelling units in select areas zoned for larger single-family residential lots or duplex residential lots within a prescribed distance to transit stops with frequent service”, within urban containment boundaries, and municipalities over 5,000. Those are included in a press release, that also includes the timeline:

December 2023 – SSMUH (small-scale, multi-unit homes) policy manual and site standards provided to local governments.

January 2024 – HNR (housing needs reports) instructions provided to local governments.

January/February 2024 – Details announced for $51 million funding allocation.

June 30, 2024 – Local governments must have updated their bylaws to accommodate SSMUH requirements

June/July 2024 – OCP/zoning review/update instructions provided to municipalities.

Jan. 1, 2025 (date subject to regulation) – Local governments must have completed their interim HNR.

Dec. 31, 2025 (date subject to regulation) – Municipalities must have completed their first review and update of their OCPs and zoning bylaws (based on interim HNR).

[djmk]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Bill 47 is the Housing Statutes (Transit-oriented areas) Amendment Act. That’s the bill that requires municipality's plans to allow up to 20 storeys and 5 FAR 200m from a Skytrain station, 12 storeys and 4 FAR up to 400m and 8 storeys and 3 FAR up to 800m. There are other transportation hubs that will require specified densities within a 400m radius, but exactly where those are located isn’t yet clear.

800m radius is a huge amount of space. The distance between stations is not even 1.6km.

It's Oak to Ontario going down Cambie

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by djmk

800m radius is a huge amount of space. The distance between stations is not even 1.6km.

It's Oak to Ontario going down Cambie

Josh Messmer created a map. I'm hoping somebody eventually works out where, and by how much, the new zoning that will be required is greater than the current plans allow.

We've also been reminded that these only apply to residential zones, not commercial or industrial.

[djmk]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Josh Messmer created a map. I'm hoping somebody eventually works out where, and by how much, the new zoning that will be required is greater than the current plans allow.

We've also been reminded that these only apply to residential zones, not commercial or industrial.

wow.

If skytrain goes to UBC, that could change the entire west side.

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by djmk

800m radius is a huge amount of space. The distance between stations is not even 1.6km.

It's Oak to Ontario going down Cambie

I pray that this entire area doesn't become a commercial deadzone with residential only, like the stretch between King Edward and 40th. Absolutely atrocious planning that that was allowed, and it will be awful if none of these upzoned areas can require street level commercial as a condition of the allowable 5 FAR.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

I pray that this entire area doesn't become a commercial deadzone with residential only, like the stretch between King Edward and 40th. Absolutely atrocious planning that that was allowed, and it will be awful if none of these upzoned areas can require street level commercial as a condition of the allowable 5 FAR.

My interpretation of the legislation is that the entire radius around rapid transit stations/bus exchanges will need to have an OCP. It really would be criminal if during the planning process zero commercial/mixed zoning was done in each OCP.

[giallo]

RMTransit talks about the game-changing legislation in this video.

• Video Link

[logan5]

Originally Posted by djmk

wow.

If skytrain goes to UBC, that could change the entire west side.

I imagine the Jericho Coalition must have heavily soiled their Depends when they saw the Provinces new TOD plan. Originally they were worried about towers only on the Jericho lands. Now there will be towers beyond the Jericho lands to the south, past 10th Ave. Then there's Alma and McDonald stations. Those stations with an 800 meter radius would create an area of high density apartments roughly double the size of the West End. Developers love the West Side, so it will be developed very quickly (if and when the UBC line gets built).

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by logan5

I imagine the Jericho Coalition must have heavily soiled their Depends when they saw the Provinces new TOD plan. Originally they were worried about towers only on the Jericho lands. Now there will be towers beyond the Jericho lands to the south, past 10th Ave. Then there's Alma and McDonald stations. Those stations with an 800 meter radius would create an area of high density apartments roughly double the size of the West End. Developers love the West Side, so it will be developed very quickly (if and when the UBC line gets built).

Why yes, there is an insatiable demand for expensive highrise units, they'll all be snapped up immediately!

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by logan5

I imagine the Jericho Coalition must have heavily soiled their Depends when they saw the Provinces new TOD plan. Originally they were worried about towers only on the Jericho lands. Now there will be towers beyond the Jericho lands to the south, past 10th Ave. Then there's Alma and McDonald stations. Those stations with an 800 meter radius would create an area of high density apartments roughly double the size of the West End. Developers love the West Side, so it will be developed very quickly (if and when the UBC line gets built).

I did some geometry and it's very interesting how if there's a future Macdonald and future Alma station, the 800m radius just leaves the Point Grey Road waterfront out of the TOD zone. Seems slightly convenient.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by logan5

I imagine the Jericho Coalition must have heavily soiled their Depends when they saw the Provinces new TOD plan. Originally they were worried about towers only on the Jericho lands. Now there will be towers beyond the Jericho lands to the south, past 10th Ave. Then there's Alma and McDonald stations. Those stations with an 800 meter radius would create an area of high density apartments roughly double the size of the West End. Developers love the West Side, so it will be developed very quickly (if and when the UBC line gets built).

Especially now that it's a Provincial mandate, so now the City can simply point at it and rezone past all the Karens' objections; they'd have to go to Victoria to get it changed.

Originally Posted by whatnext

Why yes, there is an insatiable demand for expensive highrise units, they'll all be snapped up immediately!

Exactly.

Originally Posted by chowhou

I did some geometry and it's very interesting how if there's a future Macdonald and future Alma station, the 800m radius just leaves the Point Grey Road waterfront out of the TOD zone. Seems slightly convenient.

Locarno's deliberately hard to reach. At best you could rezone the properties along 2nd-6th, and even then only if the 44 and/or 84 become RapidBuses.

[Sheba]

I'm more curious what will happen outside the CoV. I'm not sure how this will work with some of the Canada Line stations in Richmond - between the needs of the airport and the ground condition I can't see them being able to build very tall there.

White Rock is going to have a conniption and I wouldn't be surprised if they want to have the bus loop moved so they don't have to build. They may even want most of the buses to stop at the S Surrey Park & Ride (which looks like it's on ALR so no towers there).

Then there's West Van...

[Changing City]

I'm wondering how the new OCPs will change property valuations, and whether the BC Assessment Authority will have to re-think valuing property on what's built, rather than what might be built under zoning.

The Minister has commented that he doesn't anticipate that the upzoning from requiring municipalities to allow a suite and/or laneway will impact valuations much overall, because so many properties are impacted. That seems reasonable.

But taking a single family home and now requiring it to be in a zone that might allow 12 storeys and 4 FAR, or 20 storeys, and 5 FAR would seem to increase the value of that lot quite a bit more. It's possible the Assessment Authority could take the position that until a site is assembled (or sold to a developer) the assessment doesn't change. Otherwise the owners who find themselves in those zones might find their assessed values going up significantly.

There seem to be several side effects of that. There will be a significant group of very pissed homeowners, who aren't going to take kindly to paying much higher taxes. It's not like there will be enough developer interest (or money) to buy up every developable lot in a short time - there will be thousands of properties affected. Ironically, the higher values would make site assembly more expensive, so it doesn't ensure any newly developed homes are as affordable as they might be. It presumably gives owners who do sell, a windfall non-taxable capital gain (as happens on Oak and Cambie, for example). And taxes for the homes outside the station zones should fall, as property taxes are a zero-sum game - if there's more money coming from one group of owners, the others will pay less.

[WarrenC12]

The fight against the UBC Skytrain extension will be out of this world.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by Changing City

There will be a significant group of very pissed homeowners, who aren't going to take kindly to paying much higher taxes.

we need a land value tax so bad

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I'm wondering how the new OCPs will change property valuations, and whether the BC Assessment Authority will have to re-think valuing property on what's built, rather than what might be built under zoning.

The Minister has commented that he doesn't anticipate that the upzoning from requiring municipalities to allow a suite and/or laneway will impact valuations much overall, because so many properties are impacted. That seems reasonable.

But taking a single family home and now requiring it to be in a zone that might allow 12 storeys and 4 FAR, or 20 storeys, and 5 FAR would seem to increase the value of that lot quite a bit more. It's possible the Assessment Authority could take the position that until a site is assembled (or sold to a developer) the assessment doesn't change. Otherwise the owners who find themselves in those zones might find their assessed values going up significantly.

There seem to be several side effects of that. There will be a significant group of very pissed homeowners, who aren't going to take kindly to paying much higher taxes. It's not like there will be enough developer interest (or money) to buy up every developable lot in a short time - there will be thousands of properties affected. Ironically, the higher values would make site assembly more expensive, so it doesn't ensure any newly developed homes are as affordable as they might be. It presumably gives owners who do sell, a windfall non-taxable capital gain (as happens on Oak and Cambie, for example). And taxes for the homes outside the station zones should fall, as property taxes are a zero-sum game - if there's more money coming from one group of owners, the others will pay less.

Oh dear, those forty-something hipsters and yoga moms around Commercial, Fraser and Main might just find out their enthusiastic NDP vote is going to bite them in the property tax a$$.

[logan5]

So does anybody know if there's a choice to build strata or rental, or is this another push towards rental only? Rental only at 3 FSR wouldn't attract much development.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by logan5

So does anybody know if there's a choice to build strata or rental, or is this another push towards rental only? Rental only at 3 FSR wouldn't attract much development.

Bill 44 explicitly has clauses for the local government act and Vancouver charter that state:

559.01 The following powers must not be exercised in a manner that unreasonably prohibits or restricts the use or density of use required to be permitted under section 565.03 [zoning by-laws and small-scale multi-family housing]:

(a) a power in relation to a by-law or permit under Division (3) [Zoning] of this Part;

(b) a power in relation to a heritage alteration permit, as defined in section 575 [definitions];

(c) a power under section 596A [designation of heritage conservation areas].

To me, this implies that governments zoning "yes you can build 4/6 units but if you wanna they all have to be rental haha!" would be in contravention of the law.

[logan5]

Thanks. We should get a clearer answer in the next few months (I would think).

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by logan5

Thanks. We should get a clearer answer in the next few months (I would think).

On the other hand, it might be considered "reasonable" to require one unit to be below market rental or something (as seen in the Vancouver multiplex plan). Like you said, it remains to be seen.