In June, I discussed the dramatic changes made by Victoria City Council that will impact the character and livability of our neighborhoods. 

In this newsletter, I want to update you on bills and acts brought forward by the BC Government.  These include Bills 34, 35, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47.

The impacts on Victoria will be significant, and greater than on our lightly densified neighbouring municipalities with some having significantly larger land base.

The bills are at different stages of becoming law; regulations for several acts may be created in the weeks and months ahead.  Following is a list of several bills and a short sentence or two on each:

Bill 47: Housing Statutes (TRANSIT ORIENTED AREAS) Amendment Act

• mandates minimum residential heights and densities near bus exchanges.

Bill 46: Housing Statutes (DEVELOPMENT FINACING) Amendment Act

• changes community amenity contribution process. Amenity contributions no longer to be negotiated between municipalities and developers at the zoning stage,
• changes the scope of development cost charges that municipalities collect to support sewage, water, and drainage infrastructure.

Bill 45: Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4)

• shifts responsibilities regarding dismantling of sheltering encampments; alters roles of BC Housing and municipalities in the provision of supportive housing and shelters and defines ‘basic needs’ to be provided to those without homes.

Bill 44: Housing Statutes (RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT) Amendment Act

• shifts to a pre-zoning regime while
• small-scale, multi-unit homes will be zoned upfront, 
• prohibiting public hearings for projects consistent with Official Community Plans,
• public hearings required where local governments are updating the OCP,
• public hearings required if rezoning is inconsistent with the OCP.
  
  

Bill 43: Housing Supply Act

• establishes housing targets for specified municipalities including numbers of units by size, rental versus owned, below-market rental, and units with on-site support.
  
  

Bill 35: Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act

• establishes Air B’n’B rules with emphasis on Air B’n’Bs in principal residences,
• eliminates grandfathered non-conforming Short-Term Rentals.
  
  
  

Bill 34: Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act

• restricts consumption of illegal substances in specific public places such as near playgrounds and sport fields (Note: the Harm Reduction Nurses Association is challenging the Bill through a lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court asserting that the Bill infringes on various Charter rights)
  
  
  

A week ago, I forwarded a motion to have staff present their assessment of Bill 35 (re: Short Term Rentals known as Air B’n’Bs) at a public forum or hearing at which the general public could voice their views.  While the City is not responsible for Bill 35, due to past decisions on the creation of buildings and zoning supporting Air B’n’Bs, the city has a role.  While such a gathering would not be a statutory Public Hearing which forms part of a land-use consideration, it would provide Council with feedback on dictates to municipalities.  The provincial Government could also hear the public’s views should staff or MLAs choose to watch proceedings. The majority of Council did not support this motion.

In a similar way, I will be proposing that the City assess, and present to the public on, the suite of BC Government housing bills, namely Bills 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47, at an open forum in the new year; again offering the public an opportunity to present questions, concerns, and/or accolades.  At this time, it is not clear how these bills will overlap, supplant, or override current municipal bylaws and policies.  There may be many unintended consequences which we should explore.

Several municipalities in BC are challenging the Government of BC on the loss of engagement and consultation.  Last week, we heard via news reports that the municipality of View Royal will be asking the BC Auditor General to audit the legislation and process used to create the bills.

My personal views:

• Bill 44 will not affect Victoria to the extent it will impact other neighbourhoods only because the densification proposed by Bill 44 is less demanding than the City’s adopted Missing Middle Housing Initiative and the majority of Councillors have routinely been waiving Public Hearings when OCP amendments are not mandated.
• With the large number of those sheltering in Victoria, compared to neighbouring municipalities, the impacts of Bill 45 could severely damage our neighbourhoods and City budget. It defines minimal sheltering facility requirements required within the City.