Agenda Index City of Vancouver

POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE

TO:

Vancouver City Council

FROM:

Director of Current Planning in consultation with the City Building Inspector

SUBJECT:

Barrett Commission of Inquiry into the Quality of Condominium Construction in British Columbia Recommendations for Municipal Review of Zoning and Development By-laws

 

RECOMMENDATION

GENERAL MANAGER’S COMMENTS

COUNCIL POLICY

On December 7, 1995, Council adopted Part 5 of the 1995 National Building Code (NBC) as part of the Vancouver Building By-law to control building leaks with revisions to suit the specific conditions in Vancouver.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

This report is in response to Council’s request for a report back on the Barrett Commission’s recommendations on Floor Space Ratio (FSR) exclusions to provide construction incentives to control building envelope leaks.

The Vancouver Building By-law has already adopted measures to control leaky buildings, including requirements for “rain-screen” assemblies and the involvement of “Building Envelope Specialists” in the review of the design and construction of wall assemblies.

This report addresses three principal areas of concern raised by the Barrett Commission Report: FSR measurement, balcony and walkway area exclusions, and overhangs. Of these, the issue of FSR measurement has generated the broadest level of discussion. Following staff consultations with industry advisory groups and in reviewing by-law changes proposed by other Lower Mainland municipalities, staff put forward Option A in this report, representing a consensus of opinion on an approach that removes the disincentive of FSR “penalty” in pursuing better building envelope design.

Option A would provide an exclusion from FSR for exterior wall thickness in excess of 152 mm (6 in.), to a maximum exclusion of 152 mm (6 in.) of additional wall thickness. The exclusion would therefore be available for wall thicknesses greater than 152 mm (6 in.) and up to 304 mm (12 in.). The typical frame wall now accepted by the City as the minimum standard is generally 152 mm (6 in.) thick. This is typical construction on the majority of current residential buildings, with an exterior finish of stucco or siding and a required 19 mm (¾ in.) air cavity, which would not benefit from the proposed FSR exclusion. This wall is only marginally thicker (by ¾ in. +/-) than the standard wall widely utilized prior to the City requiring an air cavity. The exclusion would only be achievable where better weather protection methods are used, such as additional layers of insulation or thicker exterior finish materials, such as brick masonry or concrete.


ag991214.htm

Other regulations which are used to control bulk and massing, including height, yards and setbacks would remain unchanged and would not be relaxed to accommodate this FSR exclusion. The impact on total bulk would be up to an additional 3 percent FSR; from approximately 0.04 FSR in a Multiple Family District, such as RM-4 maximum FSR 1.45), to approximately 0.10 FSR in a Commercial District, such as C-2 (maximum FSR 3.0). The impact on a 20-storey residential tower could be the equivalent of an additional FSR of 0.15 in, for example, Downtown South (maximum FSR 5.0), which would be approximately one-half of a storey. Staff does not believe that this additional bulk will significantly impact the currently accepted form and massing of development.

There are, however, administrative impacts to this proposal. The exclusion will add complexity and time to the application process. There is also the view that the construction industry should be responsible for producing a product that performs well and no special incentives should be necessary for that to happen. Therefore, staff are also putting forward Option B, which would retain the existing FSR calculation, without exclusions for exterior walls.

The other recommendations in the Barrett report concerning exterior walkways, protection by roofs of top floor balconies, and the promotion of roof overhangs have already been clarified or addressed through existing City by-laws. That is, Vancouver zoning by-laws, with respect to walkways, balconies, and roof overhangs, do not create a disincentive to the construction of buildings in terms of sound building envelope design practices.

BACKGROUND

Barrett Commission’s Recommendations: On July 30, 1998, Council received a staff report outlining the content of the Barrett Commission Report and recommending a City position on various aspects of the Report as well as amendments to the Building Code. In addition, Council has requested a Report back on the following Barrett Commission recommendation:

(b) exclude from FSR, walk-ways and top floor balconies protected by roofs; and

This recommendation is in the context of a number of other Barrett Commission recommendations designed to address the leaky condo problem. These include a number of issues to be dealt with under provincial legislation through Bill 46 such as financing repairs, new home warranties, trade qualifications, and licensing as well as education and training. Other recommendations also addressed in the report include increased professional field review, review of professional letters of assurance, Building Code changes to improve current practice, and municipal liability review. Together, these recommendations represent a multi-faceted approach to solve the problem given that there are number of causes.

For a discussion of background issues including recent building code provisions and the responses of other lower Mainland municipalities, see Appendix B.

Industry Concerns: The development industry is concerned that increases in exterior wall thickness in order to construct buildings to the new standards required by the City, and as recommended by the Barrett Commission, will result in a loss of net floor area, and hence a loss in economic viability for many projects. The message which has come through clearly from consultation with various segments of the construction industry is that to ensure better walls, thicker is better.

The underlying intent of the Barrett Commission recommendation with respect to FSR calculations is that municipalities find ways of removing disincentives to building better/thicker walls. To this end, industry has expressed support for various options for excluding wall thickness from floor area, including the option presented in Option A.

The City has received requests from the AIBC to exclude floor area for various aspects of building construction including the wall assembly, overhangs, covered walk-ways, and balconies. The intent of these requests is to remove floor space limits as an influence in selecting the type of exterior wall that will offer the best performance.

DISCUSSION

Calculation of Wall Assembly FSR: Given the goals of better construction and consumer protection, City actions need to be taken in the context of the likely effectiveness of all the Barrett Commission’s recommendations. If all the proposed long term actions put forward by the Commission are implemented, the overall impact on the industry will be a raised base standard of practice. In this context, it is a fundamental question as to whether Council wishes to exclusively mandate a minimum requirement through the Building Code, or to provide through FSR exclusions, compensation and encouragement to the development industry to follow better than the minimum required construction practices.

In reviewing options for potential FSR exclusions to encourage good construction, staff considered the following issues:

(a) Causal Relationship: To what extent does the current by-law regulation which includes the wall in the FSR calculation directly lead to a building design that is more prone to leak? Does the regulation preclude better design and construction or are market trends, development economics or other factors causing development decisions that only appear to be a function of the regulation?

(c) Administrative Ability: To what extent will by-law amendments add additional complexity in day-to-day administration (e.g., checking applications for compliance, information services)? Who bears the costs?

These issues were examined by staff in consultation with representatives of the construction industry as they relate to a range of options for measuring FSR.

Options for Exclusion of FSR for the Wall Assembly: The following options were reviewed by staff in consultation with industry. These discussions resulted in the option put forward to Council as Option A.

1. Barrett Commission Option

2. Measure to the Outside Face of Structural Sheathing

3. Option for Excluding Additional Wall Thickness

4. Maintaining the Existing FSR Calculation

The current VBBL regulation has impacted to a small degree achievable market floor space. However, the VBBL regulation does not guarantee or encourage better construction than the minimum requirement; additional improvements would have to be driven by the market.

Upgrades to Repair Leaky Walls: To accommodate retrofits for buildings requiring repairs for leaky walls, Option A may add to overall building bulk and potentially add requirements for relaxations of setbacks. For Option B, retaining the current FSR calculation, in addition to requirements for relaxations of setbacks, a FSR relaxation may be required, either through approval by the Director of Planning, or through the Board of Variance. While both options have associated administrative costs and implications on staff processing time, Option A provides a predictable and positive response for homeowners facing extensive repairs to leaky buildings, which result in thicker walls.

PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS

With the exception of Option B, retaining the current FSR calculation, all of the options studied involve increased staff work to varying degrees. With respect to application processing, none of the options would have sufficient impact to warrant additional staff. However, applications will take additional processing time with more information required from the applicant at an early stage. Application fees may need to be adjusted to ensure cost recovery for the additional costs associated with the additional time for reviewing area calculations and in the review of reports prepared by Building Envelope Professionals.

Should Council select Option A, staff will report back to Council within 18 months to evaluate the effectiveness of the new regulations and the impact on staff work loads, processing time, and administrative costs. An Administration Bulletin would be drafted to explain the new exclusion and how it works, along with process implications and submission requirements.

CONSULTATION

Faulty condominium construction has been the subject of intensive study by government, industry, and academic researchers for several years, in order to determine the reasons for, and the factors contributing to, this serious problem. City staff from both Planning and Permits and Licenses departments have met on various occasions during the past two years with representatives of the Architectural Institute of British Columbia (AIBC) and the Urban Development Institute (UDI) to discuss the impact of the City’s zoning and planning regulations on building design.

Several proposals put forward by City staff to remove disincentives to better building design have been reviewed by the AIBC and UDI, in addition to The Canadian Portland Cement Association, the Masonry Institute of British Columbia, and the Greater Vancouver Home Builders’ Association. The response to the options for excluding FSR for better exterior walls has been consistently positive for options that are non-discretionary and simple to define. The general message from industry has been that thicker walls are better walls.

The option put forward for Option A has resulted from subsequent discussions and recommendations by the UDI and AIBC. It addresses both industry concerns about simplicity and as much as possible, staff concerns about administration and equity for various construction types and for existing buildings. The liaison committees of the AIBC and the UDI have expressed support for this option.

There remains an industry concern that regulations for roof overhangs and door recesses continue to be a barrier to good building design. However, staff believe this concern is largely based on a persistent misunderstanding of the City’s regulations with regards to these policies. Staff will issue a Bulletin to explain the regulations concerning overhangs, and to provide for an interpretation of existing regulations that will allow an exclusion of floor area at entrance alcoves.

CONCLUSION

The leaky building problem is a serious concern for many Vancouver residents. It has been addressed by a variety of measures initiated by the Provincial Government and by the City.

Providing an exclusion from FSR for better walls, as with Option A, would remove a disincentive for their construction while marginally increasing building bulk. It could be used on repair work, without requiring an increase in FSR on existing buildings, or create non-conformities for parking or other regulations which are calculated on the basis of FSR. For repairs, only, the yard may be relaxed, by a maximum of 152 mm (6 in.), based on hardship. Setbacks should not be relaxed for new construction, however, as this would impact building massing.

The alternative, presented as Option B, accepts that the recent variety of measures initiated by the Provincial Government and by the City, through the Building By-law, are the appropriate means for addressing this serious problem. The trade-offs in building bulk and by-law complications for additional FSR incentives are not appropriate and, therefore, building quality should be market driven.

* * * * *


ag991214.htm

DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT BY-LAW No. 3575 (INCLUDING CD-1 BY-LAWS)

All additions are shown in bold italics. Deletions are shown in strikeout.

RA-1, RS-1.RS-1S, RS-1A, RS-1B, RS-2, RS-3, RS-3A RS-4, RS-5, RS-5S, RS-6, RT-1, RT-2, RT-3, RT-4, RT-4A, RT-4N, RT-4AN, RT-5, RT-5A, RT-5N, RT-5AN, RT-6, RT-7, RT-8, RT-9, RM-2, RM-3, RM-3A, RM-4, 4M-4N, RM-5, RM-5A, RM-5B, RM-5C, RM-6, FM-1, C-1, C-2, C-2B, C-2C, C-2C1, C-3A, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, FC-1, MC-1, M-1, M-1A, M-1B, M-2, IC-1, IC-2, IC-3, I-1, I-2, I-3, HA-1, HA-1A, HA-2, HA-3, CD-1. FCCDD, DD, CWD, DEOD, FSD, BCPED DISTRICT SCHEDULES

Floor Space Ratio

The following shall be excluded in the computation of floor space ratio:

DISCUSSION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
BARRET COMMISSION OF ENQUIRY

BACKGROUND
Recent Building Code Provisions: Building code provisions relating to leaks in buildings must be understood in the context of current building codes. The Vancouver Building By-law (VBBL), and the Provincial Building Code, are based on the National Building Code which is written strictly within the framework of occupant health and life safety issues. The issues involved in leaky buildings largely relate to durability of materials which do not become a code concern until deterioration leads to life safety concerns through decay and collapse of structural systems.

However, code language is starting to be rethought following changing public expectations. Future codes will likely deal with a broader scope of concerns, including issues like durability. In the recently issued 1998 Provincial Building Code, for example, a reference to durability of materials is made for the first time in the chapter that deals with building envelope design. This reference will now also appear in the new VBBL.

The City of Vancouver has taken a strong leadership position over the last four years in dealing with concerns about leaking buildings through building regulation:

(a) in December of 1995, the City issued a bulletin detailing explicit requirements concerning the application of External Insulating Foam Systems (EIFS);

(b) in 1996, two more bulletins were issued to outline the requirements for other cladding systems, and at Council’s direction, we adopted the 1995 National Building Code Environmental Separation requirements (Part 5 of the code). With the adoption of, and modifications to Part 5, and the issuance of these bulletins we outlined explicit requirements for “rain-screen” assemblies, and created a role for a “Building Envelope Specialist” to provide more focussed professional review of building envelope assemblies;

(c) in 1998, the requirements were tightened for the City’s acceptance of “Building Envelope Specialists”. This was an interim procedure, while the two professional associations, the Architects Institute of BC (AIBC) and the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of BC (APEGBC) completed a program to create an accreditation process for a new professional title: Building Envelope Professional. This program, through our involvement, is now in place; and

(d) also in 1998, Council passed a by-law to increase the scope of application of Part 5 of the VBBL to include multiple-family residential buildings which had previously been only covered under the provisions of Part 9 (Housing and Small Buildings) and exempt from the application of Part 5. This by-law requires more buildings to comply with “rain-screen” and professional review requirements.

These changes, mandated by Council, set minimum standards to deal with public concerns regarding leaky buildings but still fit within the building by-law framework of health and life safety as they are intended to prevent the eventual decay of the building structure.

Other Municipalities: In March, 1999, the Homeowner Protection Office, established by the provincial government to regulate the residential construction industry, released a guide entitled Land Use Planning & Weather Protected Buildings. This is a guide for local municipal governments to be used in their review of land use regulations which have an impact on the quality of residential construction. Its particular focus, as in this report to Council, is with Recommendation #10 of the Barrett Commission Report, which addresses current methods of FSR calculations which have impacts on the construction of better buildings. The options which have been reviewed by staff in the preparation of this report to Council covered a similar range of alternatives as presented by the HPO guide. The cities of Vancouver, North Vancouver, and Surrey provided assistance in the preparation of the guide.

As Vancouver has taken the lead on these issues in the past, it appears that some of the other Lower Mainland municipalities are waiting to see what precedent the City sets. One exception is the City of North Vancouver where the municipality is going ahead with a policy that will exempt from FSR calculations a maximum 165 mm (6.5 in.) thickness of the exterior of any wall similar to Option A, where staff does not believe that there will be a significant change in the scale of development as a result of this change.

Also, in the City of New Westminster, where zoning regulations control the size of buildings through site coverage, and not through FSR, a yard relaxation of up to 203 mm (8 in.) will allow for thicker walls. In the City of Port Moody, FSR will be measured to the inside face of exterior walls. These decisions will have the effect of “up-zoning” the municipality without making a distinction between quality of assemblies. As well, these new policies are primarily address low-rise or medium rise multiple family buildings, and do not address the size or range of building types found in Vancouver. These municipalities are proceeding in this manner as they felt they needed to act quickly, and it needed to be simple enough to apply with limited staff resources.

DISCUSSION

1. Recommendation to review the method for calculating FSR, with a view to promoting sound building envelope design practices.

TYPICAL EXTERIOR WALL TYPES

2. Recommendation for FSR Exclusion of Walkways and Top Floor Balconies

3. Recommendation to Promote Overhangs

* * * * *


ag991214.htm


Comments or questions? You can send us email.
[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver