Citywide RS rezoning for multiplexes: Many unresolved issues as City Council considers (Tues, July 25) sending “Missing Middle” housing policy to a public hearing in September

(Updated: Upon a motion by Clr Adriane Carr, City Council adopted this among other reports on July 25, on consensus. Not a question was asked, not a word spoken about the content of this report. The result is that the topic is now on track for a Public Hearing to be scheduled for Sept or later this fall. Mayor Ken Sim was absent, for no stated reason, but he and all ABC Councillors will own this decision when it comes to the Oct 2026 civic election. With Council adoption of this referral report, City clerks will now block all correspondence to Mayor and Council on this policy until the Public Hearing. No changes will be made to the policy. The public will likely have less than a week’s advance notice of the Public Hearing, which has a 50% chance of being held during the daytime, on a Thursday at 1 p.m., following ABC’s recent changes to the Procedures Bylaw. In effect, this policy is on auto-pilot, or rather, under the control of planning staff under Theresa O’Donnell, chief planner, with major input from builders and industry but deceptive and incomplete public engagement.)

Rezoning most of the land base of the City of Vancouver requires careful consideration to balance the public’s interests with industry’s demands for expediency. Some experts are raising alarm bells that key concerns have not been met.

The City of Vancouver’s planning staff have drafted a report  proposing to rezone all 60,000 lots in all RS zones citywide into one new zone (R1-1) that allows up to 6 units per lot.

The report, “Adding Missing Middle Housing and Simplifying Regulations – Amendments to the Zoning and Development By-law,” goes to City Council the morning of Tuesday, July 25, 2023 (link to meeting agenda, documents, how to write to Council – https://council.vancouver.ca/20230725/regu20230725ag.htm).

Staff are seeking Council approval for referral to public hearing, which would likely be this September. The problem is, once a referral report is adopted, the chances of making any improvements are very limited.

There are serious shortcomings in the current report, things that could come back to haunt this Council at the next civic election, in 2026. Instead of simply approving this referral report, the ABC majority under Mayor Ken Sim has the option of instructing staff to take more time to iron out the problems. Although, as one would expect, proponents of industry are anxious to get this passed quickly. But fixing the problem with the policy after it has been approved could end up being very burdensome on Council and staff.

City staff have reflected stakeholder input mainly from potential multiplex builders. For example, other stakeholders such as character house and heritage retention multiple conversion dwelling (MCD) and infill advocates and builders were not consulted meaningfully or at all. Rather than entirely undermining heritage and character house retention options, zoning and other bylaw regulations should make it easier to retain more of the original building and expedite retention projects so that they are easier to do. Retention through adaptive reuse saves embodied carbon while adding new housing units.

If Council were to not refer the staff report to public hearing on July 25, staff could spend August addressing the above outstanding issues and bring back a revised amended report for Council referral in September.

Above: All the coloured areas in the map are targeted by this proposed policy

While most agree that the city needs more multiple unit housing citywide, there are many ways to provide this. It needs to be done so that growth matches population increases, is within the infrastructure capacity, livable, affordable and sustainable. Critics claim that this current proposal doesn’t meet this test without some changes.

The proposal allows four strata units on a 33 ft. lot, five units on medium lots and 6 units on larger lots, or up to 8 units if they are all rentals. At 1.0 floor space ratio (FSR), 3 storeys above grade, large site coverage footprint and small setbacks from the street, these buildings are effectively small boxy apartment buildings. They provide little usable outdoor space or room for trees or landscaping.

Here are some excerpts from a Globe and Mail article by Kerry Gold (July 7, 2023), “Vancouver’s push to allow multiplex housing criticized” linked below:

…”Everyone agrees more housing is needed. The worry is that livability could be lost in the process, and because the plan is to simplify the zoning in a one-rule-fits-all approach, some in the industry wonder if distinct neighbourhoods will disappear into a sea of homogenized blocky buildings.

“There is just the livability of it,” says Martin Warren, owner of Vanglo Sustainable Construction Group. “I would worry that fourplexes on 33-foot lots and sixplexes on larger lots as a ‘here and there,’ are fine, but widespread across the entire city? I’m struggling to see what that looks like.

Eventually, developers would figure out their own way to do this as quickly as possible,” he adds, which could result in a lot of nondescript square blocks, such as those built in the 60s that are mixed in with Mount Pleasant houses.

Mr. Warren embraces the need for greater density in detached house zones, but only if it’s executed properly will the plan succeed, he says. He’s currently working on a project in east Vancouver with Measured Architecture to build a fourplex on a 56-foot-wide lot, and even though the new policy might allow him to go to a sixplex, he doesn’t see that working out in terms of livability.

“I feel that [the four units] is plenty of density in terms of the number of families living on one plot of land,” he says. “It creates more longevity for the people purchasing and living in these units.”

Architect Clinton Cuddington, who’s working with Mr. Warren on the net-zero project, which includes a Heritage Revitalization Agreement incentive, advocates for sustainable building practices and getting people out of cars, but he’s also an advocate of setting a high bar for design and livability.

“I’m fully in support of moving to densification but I think we need to rise up slowly or we are going to get into this inversion of our neighbourhoods that will lead to a whole series of crises that have not been thought out at the infrastructure level,” he says, referring to the increased need for sewer and electrical systems, for example.

As well, there is the significant cost of constructing what amounts to mini apartment buildings.

“They are some of the most expensive ideas out there, because of the ratio of bathrooms and kitchens to the overall area of the proposition. These are not $500 per sq. ft. ideas,” says Mr. Cuddington.

“These are much higher cost per square foot.”

“To have just streets of those would be very undesirable, I’m sure, as a streetscape, and also to live in.”

Source: “Vancouver ponders plans to expand multiplex development” 7-Jul-2023: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/vancouver/article-vancouver-ponders-plans-to-expand-multiplex-development/

Here below are a few specific examples of issues attached to a Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods (CVN) letter to Vancouver City Council dated March 3, 2023 linked below, that have not been adequately addressed in the staff report:

Lack of planning and resources for amenities and infrastructure for growth:  Of particular concern is the lack of neighbourhood-based planning for adequate amenities and infrastructure for approved growth. The accumulative affects of multiplexes will be substantial, so therefore it is critical that planning includes the resources for schools, health care, daycare, community facilities, amenities and infrastructure in every neighbourhood. As we know CACs and DCLs do not begin to cover these costs for growth and there is no reason to believe that new additional proposed CACs will be any different.  Many neighbourhoods are already underserved for amenities and infrastructure.

Basic electrical and sewer infrastructure insufficient: Requiring every RS lot to have its own electrical transformer (PMT) with a 12 ft x 12 ft easement at the lane and a huge underground water holding tank to prevent overflowing the sewer system illustrates how the current proposal is beyond the capacity of city infrastructure.  These costs of approximately $100,000 for  a transformer PMT and $25,000 for a water tank are prohibitive, as well as taking up valuable land area that makes this unfeasible.

Loss of existing affordable rental suites: The RS zones currently have a very large number of rental suites, as well as whole houses that are rented, that would be lost through this initiative.

Why rezone 60,000 RS lots for up to 6 units each when the target is only 10,000 more units? Rather than completely overloading the city’s infrastructure, the city should take a more targeted approach. Look at how each neighbourhood can take their fair share of the 10,000 unit target and ensure that it is done in parallel with the required infrastructure. Note that the 10,000 unit target is for all missing middle units, not just multiplexes, including duplexes, suites, infill and character house retention incentive projects.

A more selective approach could produce more units while putting less pressure on services:  At an average of  only one added unit per lot that could produce 60,000 units. For example, by making multiplexes a bit more moderate, it could actually be easier to build while not undermining the other opportunities such as for more suites, character house retention incentives, or overloading services.

For example, allowing multiplexes at 0.85 FSR of 3 units on standard 33’x120′ lots, 4 units on 50’x120′ lots and 6 units on corners with 60′ or more width would provide for bigger family units, more yard, trees and permeability, and a better fit for services.

Undermining character retention incentives – 0.85 FSR vs 1.0 FSR:  The current character house retention incentives of 0.85 FSR would be undermined by allowing 1.0 FSR for multiplexes.  This will lead to more demolition and lost rental affordability. The retention incentives need to be more than new construction or they will not work. This is unbalanced as proposed.

Undermining climate policy objectives for more trees and less embodied carbon: To meet climate objectives, the need for growth should be balanced with climate objectives to increase the tree canopy. Current proposals of 1.0 FSR will leave little yard space for retaining existing trees or planting new.  The higher the new FSR and larger site coverage, the more embodied carbon is produced to build a bigger building and more demolition.

Minimum unit sizes and bedroom sizes should be specified: Multiplexes in other areas have shown that some bedrooms are only 7’x8′ and some units too small for families, so minimum sizes are required. (Updated)

Properties listed on the Vancouver Heritage Register should be exempted: To be consistent with Heritage retention policies, increasing development pressure from multiplexes should be avoided. Instead, properties listed on the Heritage register can increase development through retention incentives in a Heritage Retention Agreement (HRA).

Lack of data for planning: City Council and the public continue to lack the much-needed data to determine how many units are actually required for anticipated growth in our communities. Also needed is data on how many units have already been planned or approved broken down by neighbourhood and how much impact that will have on services. This data should also inform how multiplexes are implemented.

Reduced front yard setbacks: Almost no front yards or permeable surfaces are proposed with little green space provided. Loss of trees, even large street trees where front yard setbacks are so narrow that it isn’t enough room for root systems. Instead, front yards should be retained to provide for outside space for the ground floor or front unit, to avoid putting all the outdoor space in the rear yard with little privacy between units. Front yards should continue to be a factor of the depth of the lot, as well as consideration of adjacent properties and streetscapes. Where front yards are reduced, consider stepping back the second floor to avoid cutting off all light to adjacent properties. It is unclear in the presentation materials what the proposed front yard setback would be.

Combining RS Zones: While there may be some rationale for simplifying and combining  some RS zones, some zones such as RS3 and RS3A were specifically designed for the existing lot sizes, configurations and building forms of the area. These should be treated differently and retained. There should be some consideration of local area conditions and influences.

Design Guidelines should be retained and improved: The Design Guidelines help to clarify the intent of the zoning and provide important guidance to designers, builders and staff. Having this level of clarity actually helps to speed up approvals rather than leaving it open to misinterpretation that requires many revisions. To remove Design Guidelines is not practical and makes the zoning less transparent.

Lack of onsite parking and EV charging:  Only requiring one or two onsite parking stall for up to 6 units, or potentially no onsite parking, will overload street parking and not have electric car charging that is a disincentive to convert to an EV.

Require all new single family houses to have a secondary suite: There is no reason to be building new houses without at least one secondary suite.

Allow additions and renovations to existing houses beyond 0.6 FSR: The proposed reduced sizes of new houses to 0.6 FSR with increased laneway house is reasonable. While avoiding very big new houses is a good idea, there should be some options for making additions or renovations to existing houses for adaptive reuse.  (Note: referral report only allows for 0.65 FSR for character retention incentive for a house with a suite, which is not enough and even less than the current incentive of 0.75 FSR.)

Allow 2 secondary suites through the Secondary Suite Program: Traditionally, it is common to find houses made up of 3 suites, ground level, main floor and top floor suites. Usually at least one of these suites are unauthorized. Rather than shutting down good suites, they could be legalized and made safe through the Secondary Suite Program. Code staff are reluctant to do so, but now even the province is incentivizing more secondary suites so this should be reconsidered through direction by Council.

Landscape irrigation should be required to ensure trees and shrubs survive: There is very little landscaping so to ensure it survives it is essential that there is irrigation, especially with multiple strata owners.  

Full CVN letter (March 3, 2023) linked here (updated): https://coalitionvan.org/posts/20230303-rs-rezoning-multiplex-consult/

**********

Here is an excerpt from the Upper Kitsilano Residents Association newsletter of 23-Jul-2023

What is Middle Missing Housing?

Missing Middle housing refers to dwellings that fall somewhere between a single-family house and a tower. In Vancouver, these forms are deemed to be missing from the housing landscape. In 2021, Cllr. Lisa Dominato brought forward a motion to Council to address the shortage, which was followed up by former mayor Kennedy Stewart’s Making Home plan, which called for six units on a single lot. The current plan takes its cue from both initiatives.

According to City of Vancouver Planning head Theresa O’Donnell, the new MMH proposal is attracting plenty of interest from developers, who helped staff craft the plan.

But with run-away mortgage rates and costly building supplies, there is no guarantee how many multiplexes will actually get built.

The MMH proposal has since been updated to include the following additions/changes:

• Construction of these new housing types will require either a set-rate density bonus payment, a below-market homeownership unit, or secured rental housing for the opportunity to access additional density with a multiplex application;

• Extended passive house incentives to multiplexes and simplified passive house regulations;

• Reduced maximum size of new single-detached houses;

• Increased maximum size of new laneway houses, and simplified laneway house regulations.

When the plan was first presented to Council, Senior Planner Patricia Huber admitted the work will not happen without side effects. Green space, such as front and back grass yards, and on-site trees and shrubs, will be lost (read Cambie Street). Construction could also lead to damaged root systems of prized 100-year-old boulevard trees. UKRA has other concerns such as the pressure on Vancouver’s aging sewer systems, and an overall reduction in permeability and increase in absorbed heat when yards are removed and covered in concrete. Lack of schools to support the increased population, and increased street parking are also ongoing worries.

The City has very weak heritage and character housing protection, leaving many of Vancouver’s older homes vulnerable to demolition.

Those living in existing secondary suites will be displaced — another serious “side effect” of the plan. BC already has the highest rate of no-fault evictions in Canada.

As Andy Yan, director of Simon Fraser University’s City Program said in a Feb. 3, 2023,

Globe and Mail story (“Single family houses, multifamily homes, Kerry Gold, 3-Feb-2023), “As they [the City] go after this new missing middle for home ownership and launch a new wave of building, you will have a displacement effect.” Based on 2021 numbers, Yan estimates that about 50 per cent of households in Kitsilano are renters. “There is already a missing middle that exists in the city of Vancouver that needs to be acknowledged and engaged,” said Prof. Yan.

According to Huber, a tenant protection plan for renters is not included in the plan.

Affordable for whom?

The nagging question of affordability remains unanswered. While the cost of new multiplex units will still be out of reach for many households, the City says the new options will cost

less than what is available today. Staff anticipate that a new multiplex unit will be priced at 50 per cent of the cost of a new single-detached house, and about 75 per cent of the cost of a new duplex in a similar location. Consider that the cost to build a detached house on a 33- foot lot in East Vancouver is currently $2.8 million; half a duplex on that same lot would cost $1.55 million, and one-quarter of a fourplex would be $1.1 million, according to City staff. Owning one unit, then, would require an income of $235,000+. (The City has not, to the best of our knowledge, provided estimates of what it would cost to purchase the same type of housing on Vancouver’s Westside).

However, since the introduction of the Broadway and Vancouver Plans, most of us have heard stories from renters and potential homeowners that any government strategy that encourages demolishing older buildings to make way for brand new structures creates higher and higher priced housing. As the demolitions continue, ever more of those in need of housing, including middle-income earners, are shut out.

********* ********

REFERENCES:

Referral Report July 25, 2023 (PDF, 124 pages) https://council.vancouver.ca/20230725/documents/rr2.pdf

July 25, 2023 Council Agenda https://council.vancouver.ca/20230725/regu20230725ag.htm

********* ********

What is proposed:

The maximum number of units is three to four units on standard 33 ft lots, five units on mid-size lots (40+ ft.), six units on larger lots (50+ ft.) or eight if all units are set aside as secured rental housing.

Other limits and amenities include:

• Maximum height is 3 storeys and 11.5 m (37.7 ft.).
• Maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) is 1.0 FSR.
• Vehicle parking is not required but can be provided at the rear of the lot.
• Bike storage is not required, but a floor area exemption is allowed if provided.

Where can multiplexes be built?

Multiplexes will be allowed in all RS zones, provided that the lot:

• Is located in an RS zone;
• Has a rear lane (or is double-fronting);
• Has a frontage of 10 m (32.8 ft.) or more;
• Is not within a designated floodplain; and
• Is not a legally designated heritage site. (Most properties listed on the Vancouver Heritage Register are not protected legally so this exemption would not apply.)

The City staff plan also recommends simplifying a tangle of zoning regulations and amalgamating all RS zones into one. The City currently has nine RS zones — RS-1, RS-1A, RS-1B, RS-2, RS-3, RS-3A, RS-5, RS-6 and RS-7. The new name for the unified zone will be changed to Residential Inclusive zone, R1-1.

It’s fair to ask if the City has been consulting with the public in good faith on this topic. Compare images below. First the landing page on the City of Vancouver website for public consultation on the Middle Middle policies in February 2023, then below that, an image being circulated on social media by City staff in July 2023, just days before the policy goes to Council.

Below: Landing page on City of Vancouver website in Feb 2023. Note the expansive lawn and ocean scenes.

Below: Image from City planning staff being circulated on social media, July 2023. Note how the building fits onto the lot, and relationship to the neighbouring homes.