Vancouver is allowing multiplexes in Kitsilano and Shaughnessy, but not following provincial guidelines

Vancouver is making as few changes as possible in response to provincial legislation

City staff reports:

• Amendments to Restricted Zones (RT-7, RT-9, CD-1 371 and CD-1 463)

• Amendments to the First Shaughnessy District Schedule and Heritage Conservation Area Official Development Plan

TLDR: The provincial government is requiring municipalities to update their bylaws to allow multiplexes everywhere. The city of Vancouver is making as few changes as possible. It’s interesting to see what kind of justifications they’re giving.

---

People want to live and work in Vancouver, and other people want to build housing for them, but we make it really difficult to get permission.

Discussing the 2021-2022 legislative session in California, Matthew Yglesias observes that state legislatures need to keep closing loopholes that municipalities try to use.

In some ways, the least interesting but most telling housing bill passed this session was legislation from Sharon Quirk-Silva that aims to make it easier to build ADUs and casitas.

The Quirk-Silva bill is significant because California has already passed several pro-ADU measures over the past decade. The fact that repeat bills keep passing on this topic reflects the existence of a durable pro-housing political coalition in Sacramento that is willing and able to take multiple bites of the apple if localities defy the legislature’s desire to see more housing approved. And that’s critically important because it’s hard to know ex ante what loopholes will or won’t be identified or exploited. The Wicks and Friedman bills are the most transformative in their intent, but it’s possible that recalcitrant town councils and county planning departments will try to undermine them. The message of the repeat ADU legislation is that the housing coalition won’t let them.

BC’s multiplex legislation

Last November, the BC government passed legislation requiring municipal governments to update their bylaws by June 30, 2024, to allow multiplexes and transit-oriented development.

The intent of the provincial legislation and multiplex guidelines seems clear: allow at least four-plexes with three storeys and 50% site coverage everywhere (about 1.5 FSR, 1500 square feet per unit on a 33-foot lot), and allow at least six-plexes with 60% site coverage near frequent transit (about 1.8 FSR, 1200 square foot per unit).

There’s been a slew of municipal staff reports with detailed analysis and recommendations.

The city of Vancouver had already passed its own multiplex program in September, and the provincial multiplex legislation only applies to areas which are restricted to detached houses and duplexes. So for areas where the city’s multiplex program applies, the city isn’t legally required to adopt the provincial multiplex guidelines.

However, the city’s multiplex program only included RS zones. RT zones were basically excluded. A 2016 explainer by Jens von Bergmann: What’s up with RT?

There’s a public hearing tonight to consider changing Vancouver’s restrictive zoning to allow multiplexes in Kitsilano and Shaughnessy. Specifically, the RT-7 zones in Kitsilano (orange), the RT-9 zone in Kits Point (purple), and the First Shaughnessy District (magenta).

Why is Vancouver not changing more RT zones?

I found it interesting to read the justifications given in the staff report for trying to minimize the changes required by the provincial legislation as much as possible.

Why are only RT-7 and RT-9 being upzoned?

Appendix F, Restricted Zone Analysis:

The Small-Scale, Multi-Unit Housing (SSMUH) requirements apply to Provincially-defined “Restricted Zones”. Restricted Zones are zones that did not allow more than the residential uses set out in the definition as of December 7, 2023 (the date on which the legislation received Royal Assent). There are two tiers within the definition; one for zones that were restricted to detached one-family dwellings, and a second for zones that were restricted to one-family dwellings and duplexes, both with or without additional dwelling units in the same building or on the property (e.g. secondary suites or laneway houses).

Staff conducted a comprehensive review of zones that permit residential uses to determine SSMUH applicability. The table below indicates which zones were determined to be restricted as per the Provincial legislation, which were not, and provides a brief summary of the analysis.

For almost all the RT zones, the staff report says:

Enable 3+ principal dwelling units by permitting multiple dwelling, townhouse, apartment, or mixed-use residential building.

But in the RT zones, multiple dwellings are not allowed by right: they’re only allowed conditionally, meaning that you need to get special permission. For example, here’s what the RT-8 zone schedule says:

The staff analysis is saying that if you can build a multi-unit dwelling in a zone, even if it’s conditional, the province isn’t going to consider it to be a Restricted Zone. This reasoning seems dubious, given that the provincial legislation explicitly says that municipal governments are required to make multiplexes legal by right, as opposed to conditional:

Council must also not establish conditional density rules for the purpose of achieving the minimum number of dwelling units required to be permitted under legislation. (p. 5)

Staff are basically saying, even though the province is saying we can’t do this going forward, they didn’t say anything about what happens if we already did it.

Why is Vancouver not adopting the province’s guidelines?

The city’s multiplex regulations are much more restrictive than the province’s multiplex guidelines. The province’s guidelines (three storeys, 60% site coverage near frequent transit) translate to about 1.8 FSR, or 7200 square feet of floor space on a 4000-square-foot lot (enough for 6 x 1200 square foot homes).

The city’s regulations only allow 1.0 FSR, or 4000 square feet of floor space on a 4000-square-foot lot (enough for 4 x 1000 square foot homes). In other words, the city’s allowing only about half as much floor space.

Is the city going to adopt the province’s guidelines? No.

What does the staff report say?

The legislation is supported by a Provincial policy manual that local governments must consider when bringing forward amendments to zoning by-laws to enable SSMUH. The manual provides an overview of the legislation, advice on zoning changes, and other considerations for implementing SSMUH requirements. It also contains four sets of site standards designed to address different site contexts found in BC municipalities. Although local governments are obligated to consider the manual, local governments are not required to strictly follow its recommendations because the Province recognizes that there is significant diversity amongst municipalities in terms of legal structure, size, geography, and historical and current land use patterns.

So what’s the justification for the city of Vancouver not following the province’s recommendations?

The Vancouver Plan proposes multiplex as the new baseline to be included in all neighbourhoods. Denser housing options such as townhouses and apartments will be enabled in Villages, Neighbourhood Centres and Transit Oriented Areas. This focused approach to growth takes advantage of frequent transit and avoids the cost of upgrading utilities in all areas of the city.

While the policy manual suggests a maximum site coverage of 50-60% and height of 3 storeys, the Provincial legislation does not mandate a minimum Floor Space Ratio (FSR). The recently introduced R1-1 multiplex regulations were the result of careful work considering a broad range of factors and rigorously tested with industry. Given the success of those regulations with 146 DP applications as of May 14, 2024 staff are proposing to add an option to RT-7 and RT-9 that is as close to the R1-1 multiplex option as possible. Density above 1.0 FSR poses increased utility risk and would require a longer conditional review process with less certainty and potentially costly utility upgrades. Larger buildings could push projects to underground parking and more building code complexity and related costs. Considering all factors, staff continue to recommend 1.0 FSR.

To me this seems penny-wise, pound-foolish. The severity of the housing shortage is strangling the entire metro region, with newcomers facing income barriers that are high and rising, and with one quarter of Metro Vancouver residents are planning to leave in the next five years. High housing costs make us all poorer and worse off. When younger people can’t afford to live here, hospitals will have a hard time hiring nurses and doctors, and the healthcare system will come under severe strain. In fact this is already happening.

Restricting the supply of floor space, so that taxpayers don’t need to upgrade water and sewer infrastructure that’s approaching 100 years old, seems like a perfect example of a false economy. This doesn’t just affect Metro Vancouver: restricting housing in one of Canada’s most economically productive cities has wider economic impacts.

The resulting policy seems backwards. Within the region, the city of Vancouver is geographically central (with easy access to lots of jobs), and more people want to live there (resulting in higher prices and rents). The city of Vancouver should be allowing more density than municipalities which are further out.

In Shaughnessy, staff are recommending 0.5 FSR. Looking at the corresponding section of the Shaughnessy report, I don’t see any justification given at all.

A base density (0.25 FSR + 139 m2 ) is included, aligning with the current density provided for sites without protected heritage property in First Shaughnessy, which ensures that the required number of dwelling units can be achieved without the additional floor area available through the density bonus. For sites without protected heritage property, applicants can access additional density through the density bonus up to 0.5 FSR for new multiple dwelling development, and up to 0.45 FSR for multiple conversion dwellings and infill.

Multiplexes as the path of least resistance

The other interesting thing about multiplexes in Vancouver is that it’s far easier to get approval for a multiplex than for a small apartment building. So sites where you could assemble four or five lots and build a six-storey building with 100 apartments are being redeveloped for multiplexes instead.

It’s like multiplexes are the new single-detached house. They use much more expensive land per square foot of floor space than an apartment building, because they’re still relatively low-density, but because it’s so much easier to get approval, people will choose to build them instead of going through the painful process of trying to get permission to build a small apartment building. (“It’s easier to elect a pope.”)

Because Vancouver has limited land, it’s important to use it efficiently. Vancouver’s zoning rules, which tightly restrict how much housing can be built on each lot, do the opposite.

What are the city’s options?

• Expand the multiplex program to include small apartment buildings.

• Reform the Secured Rental Policy to make it easier to get permission to build a small apartment building.

• Do nothing.

More

• To find out what zone applies to a particular lot, see the city’s Digital Zoning Map

• Public hearing for Vancouver’s multiplex policy, September 2023

• Summary of BC housing legislation