Reductions in sunlight policy would only translate to minor housing gains, report

What happened: A report from city staff looked into changing the city’s sunlight access policy, but it would only result in minimal gains in terms of new housing. If the city’s guidelines were reduced by two hours, the development potential would be about 0.15% more housing units.

• While it would cut the time in which sunlight is preserved by about a third, it would only add around 300 potential new units of housing out of an existing development potential of 200,000 units, according to the report.

Background: The City of Vancouver’s development guidelines include rules for new developments to preserve access to direct sunlight around parks and school yards. The guidelines specifically are aimed at maintaining sunlight access from 10 am to 4 pm.

In a presentation to council, staff cited the city’s “predominantly overcast climate” as a particular reason for preserving direct sunlight in public areas, especially in the spring and fall seasons. Staff said access to the sun improves public life, supports mental and physical well-being and maintains healthy vegetation — particularly the tree canopy.

• Council recently directed staff to look at how changes to that rule could increase the potential development of housing, as the city faces a housing shortage. Specifically, council asked: would reducing the sunlight access window down to just four hours, between 10 am to 2 pm lead to more housing being built?

What the report said: In short, no, not really.

In the city, there are nearly 40,000 parcels of land outside the downtown peninsula, of which just 720 are within a “solar fan” area — that is, an area where development guidelines consider solar access. Parcels closer to a park will have a lower height allowance for sunlight access purposes, while the further one gets from the park, the higher one can build.

If the city reduced the window to 10 am to 2 pm, that would reduce the number of parcels in the solar fan area down to 570.

• Dive Deeper: In May we reported on a Broadway Plan rezoning application that was deferred due to the fact that it would completely shade a nearby pocket park in Mount Pleasant.

What does it mean? A 33% reduction in the sunlight access policy for city parks outside the downtown peninsula would impact fewer than 2% of the lots in the city for a total increase in allowable housing units of about 10 per year. It may be unsurprising, then, that staff proposed maintaining the 10 am to 4 pm window.

Staff noted that there is some flexibility in place already — rental buildings that are six storeys and buildings of any size with 100% social housing units are not restricted by the guidelines.

On that note: ABC Coun. Peter Meiszner asked why the exemption exists for 100% social housing units. 

“If [sunlight] is so important, why would we have an exemption for, say, a 100% social housing tower? Why would we say absolutely no shadows on this park, but if it’s social housing, then we can put a shadow on this park?” Meiszner asked.

• He noted that, as a person who lives downtown, he agrees on the importance of sunlight, especially when someone who lives in an apartment doesn’t have access to a yard.

While staff proposed no changes to sunlight access guidelines outside the downtown peninsula, changes were proposed for the downtown area. And that, like existing guidelines outside downtown, included exemptions for buildings with 100% social housing.

What staff said: Senior planner Kevin Spaans told Meiszner that there are two types of exemptions — in specific areas, a development may be allowed to cast a greater shadow on a park if it provides some kind of community benefit. That could include some amount of social housing, child-care spaces or community spaces, or anything else deemed to be a community benefit by staff or council.

However, 100% social housing units may be exempt in any of the solar fan areas, though Spaans put an emphasis on “may.”

Spaans added, in response to a follow-up from ABC Coun. Sarah Kirby-Yung that the city’s general policy in a number of areas has been to offer 100% social housing buildings more latitude. He said staff was “right-sizing” the policy approach with those other policies, which he acknowledged comes with an “unintended outcome that it implies they get a free pass.”

The city’s head planner, Josh White, also weighed in to note that sunlight is one type of public benefit, but that it isn’t the only kind of public benefit.

“We weigh the trade-offs of it as a public benefit against potentially others. And in some instances, we suggest that social housing, on the balance, is privileged over other public benefits,” he said.