CRD Watch Homepage

It wasn’t the Middle that was Missing it was Competence

Arthur Mcinnes
March 09, 2024

You know my views on Council and Bayview; that is the Mayor and Council missed the mark. They missed the mark in large part because they approached the rezoning as a foregone conclusion.  This is not how this process should have unfolded and as a result we can expect to see the Council scrambling again just as it is with Transport Canada and Harbour Air at present when more gaps start appearing. 

Let’s look at another more egregious example this time involving the Missing Middle Housing Initiative. Let me begin by reminding you of some of the protracted background.

What is the Missing Middle

In effect the Missing Middle Housing Initiative seeks to diversify housing options within Victoria.  It proposed to do so by allowing for the construction of houseplexes, corner townhouses, and heritage-conserving infill housing alongside single-family homes.  The best-case scenario was that by permitting these additional housing types, Council could strike a balance between single-family homes and high-rise condos. Jeremy Caradonna’s justification for Bayview was in part that it would be the last of this type of development or words to that effect.  Missing Middle began with a consultation. 

The “Consultation”

If the Council is to be believed there was an extensive consultation which entailed public engagement, workshops, focus groups, online surveys, technical analysis and expert input, community dialogue and listening sessions.  Now, while I am not an expert on consultations, this suggests to me a whole lot was done to gauge support for and fine tune any action which was to come out of it by the Council.  It was supposedly an iterative process as well meaning that it was going to build upon itself as it progressed.  Each stage of the consultation process would take on what had been learned in the previous stage.  If done properly this type of iterative consultation should yield highly dependable outcomes.  Once this process was complete the information obtained from the consultation was then then distilled into proposed zoning bylaws. 

Amending the Bylaws

Council adopted the following on January 26, 2023:

• Missing Middle Zoning Regulations (Bylaw No. 22-045)
• Official Community Plan Amendment (Bylaw No. 22-044)
• Land Use Procedures Bylaw Amendment (Bylaw No. 22-057) and
• Affordable Housing Standards Bylaw (Bylaw No. 22-056).

Mention could also be made of Missing Middle Design Guidelines (2023).

Critique of the Missing Middle Zoning Regulations

Even before the Council appreciated how wrong they got it in many ways these things stand out:

Firstly, Bylaw 22-045’s broad application overrules existing zoning bylaws, which will create inconsistencies and contradictions. The original zoning bylaws were carefully crafted to reflect the unique local contexts, historical precedents, and community values of each neighbourhood. Overriding them with a blanket policy was always likely to lead to unwanted outcomes, as it ignores the nuanced requirements of these different areas. For instance, a one-size-fits-all approach might not consider the architectural style of James Bay.  Furthermore, uncontrolled densification will alter the unique character of some neighbourhoods, potentially eroding their unique identities. In some neighbourhoods, dare I mention Oak Bay, it will disrupt their visual coherence. 

Second, the Bylaw’s focus on maximizing density will likely lead to challenges related to infrastructure and services. While the aim of increasing the housing stock is understood, it is equally important to ensure that community infrastructure, like roads, parks, and utilities, can accommodate this growth. 

Third, the Bylaw seems to assume that all residential areas are equally suitable for increased density, which isn’t necessarily the case. Many areas in Victoria have their own environmental, historical, or cultural features that need to be preserved. Does the Roundhouse come to mind for anyone?  Unchecked densification negatively impacts these important attributes.

Fourth, the Bylaw uses Gross Floor Area as a measurement for allowing additional density. This approach will incentivize developers to build larger structures to maximize floor area, potentially leading to out-of-scale developments that disrupt the visual harmony of the impacted neighborhoods. This could result in buildings that not only look out of place but also create issues like blocking sunlight or crowding public spaces.  Does anyone remember the long missing shadow diagrams at Bayview?

Fifth, while the Bylaw mentions “affordable rental housing units,” it fails to provide clear mechanisms or incentives for the creation of such units. Without specific strategies or incentives, there’s a risk that the increase in housing stock will primarily benefit higher-income individuals, while those who need affordable housing will remain underserved. Bayview again I would say?  Would anyone be surprised if developers prioritize luxury apartments over affordable housing units if the Bylaw doesn’t provide sufficient motivation to build the latter?  

Lastly, while the Bylaw does touch upon the need for community amenities, it could be more explicit in promoting sustainable and green building practices. As we strive to reduce our carbon footprints, zoning bylaws should encourage energy-efficient buildings, the use of renewable resources, and sustainable urban design. For instance, the Bylaw could have provided incentives for buildings that will meet high energy efficiency standards or incorporate green spaces into their designs.  Once again that was wholly missing from Bayview and it is wholly missing here.  

So much for the original key Bylaw.  Now it has become worse.  It is worse because after all this work by Council it still missed the boat.  Council somehow managed to drop the ball.  You see, amidst all the consulting that was done, apparently the Council forgot to ask if anyone was interested in acting?  If anyone was interested in making new applications?  The answer it would seem is no because in the first six months only three new applications were brought forward.  

I imagine the Councillors’ surprise was palpable.  In any case once the provisional verdict was in Council very quickly moved to a review of the whole nInitative by City planning staff.   Here is one thing staff said: 

“In the context of housing planning, financing, and construction cycles, six months is a brief window of time for monitoring…Nonetheless, having received only three delegated development permit applications under the new regulations underscores a theme of feedback received through preapplication conversations: the regulations are too prescriptive and onerous in their aim to address many objectives, some of which are competing.”  Storeys Real Estate News, September 25, 2023.

Well, is it not handy that the staff could rely on “conversations” to reach this conclusion rather than relying on the extensive consultations which informed the Initiative in the first place.  One could ask why did they even bother?
 

So what came out of the City planning staff “conversations”?  They produced what the staff called “simplifications”.  I call it giving in.  Here’s a run-down of most of the amendments to the Bylaw that were passed by Council on December 7, 2023.

• No longer requiring a secondary dwelling unit
• Allowing bedrooms in a secondary dwelling unit to contribute toward the main unit’s total bedroom count
• Deferring to upcoming building code changes for adaptable dwelling unit requirements
• Increasing the maximum height of houseplexes and corner townhouses
• Establishing a minimum height relative to grade for the ceiling of the lowest level
• Removing all bonus density requirements other than dedication of right-of-way
• Amending setback and site coverage regulations
• Eliminating overlap of other use regulations with heritage-conserving infill use regulations and
• Delegating authority to staff to approve parking variances
  

Here is what a few Councillors had to say of their handywork:

Councillor Caradonna: ‘“I think it is justified to make some drastic changes to this policy,” he said, noting the existing policy looked good on paper, but clearly didn’t work for developers.’  Times Colonist, Sept 29, 2023

Councillor Thompson: “I’m glad that we’ve removed those [poison pills] and I look forward to these changes being adopted and seeing a lot more of these applications,” he said.” Thompson also made it clear that this really had nothing to do with affordability.  “Saying this isn’t the affordable stuff is not really a serious objection,” he said… “Affordable housing is not the goal being served or pursued by this project,” he said. Times Colonist, Sept 29, 2023.  This tells us a great deal about Mr Thompson and how sincere he was whenever affordable housing was used by him in justification of Bayview. 

Councillor Dell: “These are bold amendments and that’s exactly what we need to do in the middle of a housing crisis…I believe that the best thing we need to do in a housing crisis to achieve affordability is build more housing.”  I am wondering if Mr. Dell and Mr. Thompson are on the same Council.  Someone should arrange a meeting between the two of them so they can get their stories straight. 

Councillors Gardiner and Hammond voted against the amendments with Gardiner essentially calling for another Public Hearing given how significant the changes were. 

In the end it did not take long for the Council to overrule itself and return to its give-away mode once again.  What the Council should have done was to have allowed a reasonable period time to see what the take up for the Initiative was going to be after say 2, or even 3 years.   The reason that this period was called for was because of how long it really takes for awareness of such changes to be appreciated and for interested parties to consider them, prepare applications and bring them forward.  Another reason of course is the simple magnitude of the changes. Inasmuch as all zoning was going out the window one would have thought that a modest degree of circumspection was not out of place.

Acting as the Council did was wholly precipitous and shows a frightful lack of confidence in its own processes.  Here is what else it shows; that is, once again an incredible lack of real-world insight.  The Counsel’s consultation process seemed to exist in an ivory tower, detached from the realities faced by residents, property owners and developers.  While workshops, surveys you name it were conducted, they clearly failed to capture either what was needed or the real plight of those seeking affordable housing.  Thus, we end up with comments like those of Councillor Thompson when he said: “[a]ffordable housing is not the goal being served or pursued by this project,”

This fact though was not lost on Councillors Hammond and Gardiner who voted against it just as they did with Bayview.  Council seems to be unable to stop embarrassing itself and Victoria’s residents by extension.  What other actions will be taken in haste by the Council that will have to be revised almost as soon as they take effect?  I suspect we will not have long to wait to find out when Bayview gets the same treatment and we see again just how ill-informed it all was.