The old adage holds true: “You can’t believe everything you read in the newspaper".
On December 13, 2019 a local newspaper account of a recent Council decision regarding a important Oak Bay, legislated Housing Needs Report (HNR) fell woefully short of responsible reporting. The article failed to report any of the resident presentations and submission content. It also did not report that the size, massing and impacts of the multi-use developments it referenced were the main reasons the developments were rejected by residents and Council.
On December 9, 2019 resident objections convinced Council that the Housing Needs Report, that cost tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars, must not be ratified as presented. Residents were concerned the HNR was inadequate; was a complex 46 page report released on short notice and was not in draft form. The primary purpose of a Housing Needs Report is to provide a full range of demographic information necessary to develop an Oak Bay “Comprehensive Housing Report” that, in full consultation with the community will maintain Oak Bay’s Identity.
At the December 9, 2019 back-to-back meetings, a Committee of the Whole (COW) and a regular Council meeting, It was decided to send a newly BC legislated, Oak Bay Housing Needs Report back to the consultant and staff for an acceptable revision. As indicated a number of residents at the meeting explained why this was and their written submissions and presentations explained why the HNR failed on so many levels.
The best that can be said about the Housing Needs Report and its content in its present form, is it is a very good bad example.
Mr. Steve Bowker, a long time Oak Bay resident, who obviously spent a great deal of time and effort, presented his submission. He outlined many of the Reports limitations and deficiencies. Page #1 of his submission (see Appendix #2 - below) highlights the risk to the community of Council’s even “Receiving” the Housing Needs Report. He explained that because the Report is: “legislated by the Local Government Act, the Act’s definition of Receive, which is ‘final approval’, applies. It is a certification by Council that the report is complete and accurate”.
Appendix #1 & #2 Submission - important sections for consideration are:
All Sumissions in Appendix #2 provide important information that is worth consideration
At the COW meeting residents and some Council members also pointed out:
The Planning Department recommended that Council receive the Report and had a Council agenda approval item on the launching pad - ready for liftoff that same evening.
Oak Bay Watch Perspective
While we commended Council for sending the Housing Needs Report (HNR) back for much needed revision it is not clear what the revision will look like. For example in the original HNR report much of the outside agency “stakeholder” input included the recommendation of housing needs outside the jurisdiction, responsibility and funding of the District.
It was also not clear if residents will have any say or involvement in the final version of the $50,000 (budgeted) HNR document. A good start, before any revisions are considered, would be to hold three dedicated housing needs resident meetings. This would provide resident viewpoints and the same opportunities for community engagement as were accorded outside agencies.
At the COW meeting the Manager of Planning asked Council what changes they would like to see in the “modified” HNR even though there are extensive legislated requirements and guidelines to be followed, as Mr. Bowker pointed out, and many competent and appropriate models are available.
The HNR form asks, “What public engagement steps were undertaken? This form is mandatory and is to be included in the Housing Needs Report – it was not.
Note: The Planning Department continues to follow a very troubling procedure. While public engagement is continually claimed to be a valuable step, it is often only provided towards the end of the development or project process. For some time now this has been an issue for residents and Community groups alike.
The Housing Needs Report is a very important document. Although it is a component of the information needed for the Comprehensive Housing Report that will follow, it may not be considered as such. Important statistical information is missing and a lot of the HNR content is questionable and speculative. Oak Bay Watch’s concern is the “modified, revised” Housing Needs Report may not have sufficient (or any) resident input and may not be used for the legislated purpose it was intended to provide.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
*******Please help us continue to provide you with information about Community concerns and Council decisions and actions. Oak Bay Watch members also help community groups with their specific development concerns. Donate to Oak Bay Watch - even $5 or $10 dollars provides expenses for door- to- door handouts and helps us maintain our website. Oak Bay Watch is committed to ensuring the Community gets the full range of information on budget, governance and all key development issues – a well informed opinion cannot be made without this.
(Please use Donate Button at bottom of oakbaywatch.com Home Page)
Keep informed please sign up for our “based on facts” newsletter – bottom of Newsletter Menu Item.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appendix #1
Steve Bowker
At the December 9th Oak Bay Committee of the Whole meeting, the provincially legislated Housing Needs Report (HNR) was presented by members of the project team. There were also written submissions to Council from informed citizens regarding the HNR, all of which pointed out the inadequacies of the report.
Our councilors should be commended for voting to return the HNR to the project team for improvement, especially since under the same provincial legislation 'to receive' this specific report would be a certification by them that it was complete, accurate, and ready for use by other governments and agencies.
All of the resident submissions are well thought out and well written and are provided - see attached Appendix #2
Since the HNR requires much needed improvement, the existing version is only useful for comparison purposes. However every resident with an interest in the future of Oak Bay should read the information provided in Appendix #2, Submission #3.
As indicated the important sections which everyone needs to read are:
On Page #3 Section "D". Oak Bay Statistics
Lists the extreme demographic trends which are shaping Oak Bay’s future.
On Page #5 Section F. Major Omission – Purpose Built Rentals
Identifies and describes the second most critical challenge to the community after it’s aging infrastructure, and describes how addressing it will solve many of the problems caused by our extreme demographics.
It also describes what would be a desirable planning outcome from those two perspectives.
If you read nothing else on Council’s agendas this year, it has been suggested you read those three sections.
++++++++++++++
Appendix #2
Council Committee of the Whole December 9, 2019 Resident Submissions
For reference: For the submitted December 9, 2019 Housing Needs Report see Council Committee of the Whole Agenda Item #1
Oak Bay Municipal Website / Municipal Hall / Meetings & Minutes/ Past Meetings / COW Agenda
December 9, 2019 Resident Submissions
Submission #1
Dear Mayor and Councillors,
James Sultanum December-08-19 3:22PM
Mayor Kevin Murdoch; Hazel Braithwaite; Esther Paterson; Eric Wood Zhelka; Tara Ney; Andrew Appleton; Cairine Green
Oak Bay Council
Submission-Cow (agenda item 1) - Housing Needs Report
Comments - House Needs Report.docx; Comments - House Needs Report (pdf.}.pdf
Please find attached comments on the Housing Needs Report (HNR) - COW agenda item 1. It is my hope that some of the issues I raise are incorporated into the document, should you agree with me that the document before you is presented as a "draft" at this point.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer suggestions.
Respectfully, James Sultanum
Comments on the House Needs Report (HNR)
James Sultanum, South Oak Bay resident
Definitions: HNR
The HNR points out that 996 households are needed in OB by 2024. "Household" and "units" are used interchangeably throughout the document. It is not clear whether the need for housing was measured by the "number of bedrooms" available in the community or by the number of single-family houses, number of duplexes, number of units per apartment building, and so on. Consistency and clarity in definitions are key to avoid misunderstandings by developers and residents alike, particularly as one of the "Moving Forward" recommendation is to promote "ongoing education and engagement with the community".
Housing and Zoning: It would have been ideal if the HNR offered some sort of hint as to how the 996 households required will impact zoning. What is the next step as far as zoning goes? How does the HNR inform in a concrete way the work that will need to be done as far as the zoning bylaw update goes. It is also unclear who, how and when housing types by neighbourhood (OB locations) will be defined. It seems to me that the type of housing required in North Henderson, for example, differs from those of South Oak Bay, the waterfront or the village.
Scope and non-binding nature:
The HNR mentioned that it can be used "to support the development of the Housing Framework in Oak Bay". It is not clear what the difference is between the HNR before you and a "Housing Framework". Is there a common understanding among council, staff and residents of what the Framework means and entails? Is the Framework a separate document to be contracted out? Who has the mandate and authority to approve the recommendations of the Housing Framework: Council or Staff only?
Will the acceptance of the HNR automatically bind council to adopt the numbers, targets and house forms mentioned throughout the document? Council is responsiblefor developing policy, regulations and guidelines to implement housing options. If the HNR is or is not binding, then this must be clearly stated in the documents. This will prevent misunderstanding and pressure by developers and residents when conflicting interests arise. There have been cases of conflict in the community: some claim that the OCP alone is sufficient to justify and legally back up all sorts of development, even though it lacks meaningful teeth and concrete parameters.
It is my understanding that the HNR is merely another resource to inform decision-making and development. It is not a binding document that will tie up council and staff. It would be nice to have this explained and incorporated to the HNR in writing.
Basic information about the financial impact of densification on service delivery It is important that the document acknowledges that the implementation of its findings will result in financial impact on both the District's ability to handle the resulting workload (e.g. staffing)Households in the secondary market
Theme "Declining rental stock": HNR
How did the consultant came up with the 750 figure for "households rented in the secondary market in 2016". Does this number refer to or include secondary suites rental? If so, how was this number obtained? The document mentions that "it is suspected that the supply of units rented in the secondary market may have declined". This is a strong statement. It would be desirable to substantiate this assertion with real numbers. How was this trend in suite rental decline measured?
The "house poor"
"Housing in Extreme Core Housing Needs"- The numbers of resident in this situation seems to have varied considerably over the years as pointed out: 2006 (65 households); 2011 ( 1 20 households; 201 6 (85 households) - It is unclear where these numbers came from. Figure 4 on page 7 shows that 50% of homeowners in OB earn less than $39,999. Further analysis of this trend is required so that the District fully understand what concrete intervention is needed to address this share of the population (if my interpretation of these numbers is accurate). In principle, the figures presented on HNR page 6 conflict with the figures of HNR page 7.
The elderly: "Special Needs" residents and home suitability
The HNR does not seem to offer concrete steps to address this specific population. Any consultation with groups working and advocating for the elderly? What about Island Health? Silver Tread? I also miss clear reference to OB's Age-friendly Strategy and to a number of recommendations contained in the provinciai"Aging well in British Columbia" document. The latter points out the need to establish "specific targets" for new affordable housing for the elderly. Documents and strategies in general have address the issue of elders in a philosophical manner, with limited substance in regards to concrete targets and recommendations.
Health and Safety
In the Executive Summary" and throughout the document
The Report points out to a declining trend in the supply of "safe" a_nd affordable housing. Although somewhat true, I'm curious to learn how "safety decline" was measured. If decline in safety was measured, then unsafe housing is a concern and a possible liability once it's been identified by the District and the consultant. It would be useful if the document gave us a hint as to what the District can do to mitigate unsafe homes (e.g. advocate for the Province to fund upgrades/retrofit efforts?); Should the District decommission unsafe housing, including secondary suites while at the same time it promotes density? Restrictions pertaining occupant safety is a reality in Oak Bay. This is particularly the case of secondary housing such as basement suites. Safety is also a concern for the elderly, the house poor, not to mention derelict homes. 'Safety and Suitability' are topics that deserve a separate heading and specific analysis. It is unclear how safety issues will affect the projected housing needs and future inventory.
Oak Bay Lodge
The document states that District should "encourage more housing for seniors, and those with disability"- Regardless of who owns what, it would be desirable if the HNR acknowledged the role of OB Lodge in the context of housing and aging. Question: How should the District approach OB Lodge or its potential upgrade? Advocate? Invest? We are a small municipality. It is my opinion that the document should give council and the community basic recommendations regarding Oak Bay Loge and other care facilities.
Need for adequate public infrastructure
A statement or acknowledgement that growth has impact on the need for improved public infrastructure is required (e.g. funding infrastructure for safe access of residents in general and "special needs" in particular to key locations in the community- fixing sidewalks, for example. Housing needs and adequate infrastructure to accommodate growth go hand in hand.
Dwellings with suites and other housing forms - HNR
Figure 8 indicates that there are currently 496 dwellings with suites in OB. There is a concrete possibility that this is under reported. Residents are reluctant to report secondary suites as they fear decommissioning by the District. It is possible that this figure is much higher, probably double the number indicated in the HNR is (anecdotal). It does not reflect the reality on the ground. Decisions about secondary suites must take into consideration the impact of this discrepancy on the need for other forms of dwellings - how many multi-family dwelling should be built in OB vis-a vis the number of existing suites, for example. Question: Will the District set targets (number of units) for different forms of housing? Should it? It would be nice if the HNR gave us a hint on how to deal with these trade-offs.
Exact number of newly built dwellings - HNR
The report indicates that 125 "units" were built between 2011 and 2016, "reflecting the slow growth in the community. It is difficult to understand the significance of this figure as it doesn't seem to indicate how many of those 125 units built are replacement of OB's old stock (125 units divided by 5 years= average of 25 units per years). If "units" refers to dwellings (as opposed to bedrooms- not clear), then the 1 33 figure of new homes, on page 22 -top left hand side, conflicts with the 125 reported.
Cost of living in 08 - HNR
Figure 13 ("Median Shelter Costs for Owner and Rented dwellings in Oak Bay, 2006 to 2016") - Further analysis is required. It is not clear how increasing the housing supply will affect or reduce the cost of "shelter" of current homeowners in Oak Bay. If the idea is to promote aging in place and attract new residents, then a recommendation to council on ways to reduce the cost of keeping a home in OB would be desirable. If not possible, then a clear statement about the need to reduce the cost of living in OB from 34% to the 30% of a household income, as recommended by the Province. It is important that the document acknowledges the District's role in reducing living costs. A review of performance measurement in/of the District is a way to assess what can be achieved in cost reduction in the short and long-run.
Inclusion and diversification - HNR
The NHR singles out "same sex couples" as a vulnerable population in the housing context. Being in a same-sex relationship myself, I accept a general notion that LGBT has struggled with discrimination in many ways. It is not appropriate however to label LGBT as "vulnerable" or special needs in the context of OB housing. "Same sex couples" are the same as straight couples, some can afford to live in OB, others cannot. The categorization is not appropriate; it is demeaning. It is also worth mentioning that a very important vulnerable group was not considered or mentioned in the report: newcomers to Canada. Immigrants are an integral part of Canada and struggle with affordability throughout the CRD. Newcomers are not in OB for the most part. OB is not diverse from an ethnocultural point-of-view. Sensitive topic, yes but, ignoring this group in a housing context is detrimental to the idea of diversification and inclusion.
Fourplexes - HNR - Refers to opportunities to increase density
Reference is made to "fourplexes". This form of housing has been rejected by the community and should not be considered as a viable option for density increase in Oak Bay.
Establishing realistic benchmarks and indicators - HNR. The document indicates that 08 gained only 9 homes between 2006 and 2019. I assume that this figure does not include "replacement houses" nor does it include other types of infill built in the same period. There is a possibility that this figure is much higher. If this is the case, then adjustments to the number of "units" needed "in the next few years"- as described, may vary substantially.
Short-term rentals - HNR The end of item 7.5. "Declining Rental Stock"
The HNR mentions that "[the] data in Oak Bay" shows that there is no concern about losing long-term stock to short-term rental. This is a very strong statement. Short-term rentals appear to have increased in Oak Bay over recent years. Putting a policy and regulations in place for short-term rental must be deemed priority by council. It is not clear which "data in Oak Bay" supports the assumption. AirBnb numbers only do not reflect the real number of short-term rental in the community. Addressing short-term and vacation rentals is very important as they affect the District's ability to increase OB housing inventory for families willing to settle in the community.
Affordability to age in place - HNR
The HNR shows that 50% of homeowners in Oak Bay earn less than 39,999. This figure is significant. The assertion that "Household in Oak Bay are higher income, and many will likely be able to afford home care and other services to age in place does not match the reality on the ground. Low income and increase in cost of living in OB are actually likely to prevent 50% of residents from aging in place.
Fall - 2019
Submission #2
Michael Wilmut - Oak Bay Council
Housing Needs Report Item 1COW December 9, 2109
Dear Mayor and Council,
I just saw the above long awaited Housing Needs Repor prepared by Urban Matters for Monday's COW meeting today (Saturday). This important document as you know is 46 pages long. Two days is an unacceptable time to critique it - if this Council sincerely believes in community engagement.
As well a report of this magnitude should be readable, stand alone, accurate and complete. It is none of these. For example there are no indexes, no appendices, missing considerations and many conclusions based on questionable logic and data. The report is at best a good first draft.
I suggest Council pass a motion such as:
"Staff will consider the document as a draft. A revised document will be prepared by Staff for Council. The community will have input to the revised report, including the opportunity the make written and possibly oral submissions."
Mike Wilmut - Oak Bay
Submission #3
Steve Bowker - December-06-19 8:26 PM Oak Bay Council
Mayor Kevin Murdoch; Andrew Appleton; Cairine Green; Eric Wood Zhelka; Esther Paterson; Hazel Braithwaite; Tara Ney.
Submission to Dec 9, 2019 COW and Council Meeting
Bowker - Submission to Council 2019-12-09.pdf
To the Mayor in Council,
Please find attached my submission to the Monday, Dec 9, 2019 COW and Council Meeting. It refers to the Housing Needs Report which is on the agenda for both meetings.
Note: the CC list of this email. The mayor and all councillors already have a copy of my submission in their official in-baskets.
Yours truly,Stephen Bowker
Mayor in Council of the District of Oak Bay
Stephen Bowker
Submitted: December 06, 2019 - Oak Bay
Page #1
Re: Submission to 2019-12-09 COW and Council Meeting regarding the acceptance of the Housing Needs Report. A provincially mandated (and subsidized) report which is legislated to provide comprehensive fact based information, data, trends and projections on which to base five years of planning amendments to the Official Community Plan (OCP).
Recommendation: I respectfully request that the Housing Needs Report be postponed until it can be corrected for line item errors and section omissions, and generally improved and deepened so that it will better support critical planning decisions upcoming over the next five years at the local, regional, and provincial government levels.
To this end I respectfully request that the improvement/correction process include a public engagement process which asks local residents of all tenures to submit written suggestions for improving/correcting/deepening the report.
Context:
This report in its current incarnation is so deficient as to be misleading of the current housing challenges and demographic trends of Oak Bay. As such it cannot be trusted as a comprehensive source of information on which to base future planning decisions which defeats the underlying purpose of a Housing Needs Report. It therefore does not meet the minimum requirements for such a report as described at great length by the Province. Although the local planning office would have access to other local information to make up for this report's deficiencies, other levels of government would have no such access. Keep in mind that this Report has a five year cycle so quality is critical.
There are legal and other implications to Council officially "Receiving" this provincially mandated (and subsidized) Report. The "receiving" process is in effect a "certification" process whereby Council "certifies" the report to be complete and accurate for use by other levels of government in their planning processes, who will accept that certification of accuracy without question. "Receiving" such a Report which is known to be deficient, disregards the legal and contractual requirements of the Provincial Local Government Act (LGA) and the Terms of the Grant administered by Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM).
From the public engagement perspective, receiving and publishing a Housing Needs Report which is known to be deficient means that for the next five years the public will not have the full comprehensive information/data/demographics/facts/trends on which to base their evaluation of any future proposed changes to the OCP regarding housing policy.
Background:
After noticing some line item errors in the Executive Summary of this Report, I opened my word processor and began keeping a list of errors/omissions/inadequacies. When I found the first major omission of an entire housing areas and issues, I decided this submission was required.
The bulk of this submission is in my submission, which is a general critique of this Housing Needs Report. For reasons of brevity and time I have only described major issues rather than specific line item errors. As a good citizen and retired, I will freely offer my time, insight and copious notes to help the Urban Matters consultants to correct and deepen this report, however my assistance should be part of an official public engagement process; and I respectfully request that I be granted some official capacity in that process, for instance as a member of a Commission.
Yours truly, Stephen Bowker
Bowker- Submission to COW and Council 2019-12-09
APPENDIX- General Deficiencies of the Housing Needs Report - Page #2
A. Preamble:
I am a professional writer. During my long career with the provincial government, I authored many Reference and Analysis documents. With a reference document, complete and accurate content is vital. Also vital is a document structure which enables users to quickly find the information they are interested in, and then point others to it. 'Designer' layouts, fonts, coloured text, and presentation formats are unnecessary, but if they are used they should in no way impede the users from skim reading, speed reading, and scanning for the information they need. For documents which will mainly be accessed via display screens, rather than in print, two-up layouts should be avoided.
B. Presentation:
1. An HNR is first and foremost meant to be a fundamental reference document which lends itself to research and quotations. Instead, this report presents itself as a public relations document.
2. The landscape, two-up layout is aimed at printing, however most of the end users of this document will view it, skim it, and search it on a display screen. On a display screen this layout impedes the user. For instance, on my high-end laptop, if I zoom to fit both sides of the two up at the same time, the coloured text font is too light and small for me to read (black text on white would have been more readable). If I zoom in to increase the font, navigation between the two-up pages becomes frustrating and clumsy.
3. When printed, this document wastes paper due to the amount of white space, and wastes ink due to the colour graphics, coloured text and other unnecessary window dressing. It will be costly to print in part or in whole on the public's home printers.
4. The utility of this document would be vastly improved simply by pulling the content out of the presentation layout and dropping it into a KISS Word one-up print layout using black on white text.
C. Structure:
1. Although the divisions and sections have a numbering system, the number system does not extend to the important (quotable) lines of information and findings. Without such numbering it will be difficult to specifically reference key information/ findings and pass them to others, and it will be time consuming to locate them.
2. Some of the graphs do not match the numbers they are graphing. Solid coloured bar graphs suck printer ink.
3. Important facts from other sources such as federal government agencies are not specifically referenced by web link and/or quote, so the facts cannot be easily checked, and the related context and other information originally presented by those agencies is not at the users's finger tips. Such references are usually contained in one of the appendices.
4. Long, embedded descriptive paragraphs break up and dilute the presented stats/data/ info (for instance explaining methods and approaches). These should be moved to an appendix and just referenced in the body of the document should users want to know about such things.
5. There are no appendices. A fundamental reference document such as this should have several appendices supporting the body of the document and the findings that it presents. Not the least of the appendices should be the raw data/info that was used to create the report, which under provincial requirements should also be published.
6. The primary difference between HNRs and other related studies, is that by provincial requirements, the HNR is supposed to be based upon, and present documented facts, statistics, demographics etc. Many of the points, findings, and projections made by this report are shallow and speculative as they are supported only by notional information, (ie: popular opinions, unsupported opinions from focus groups, and unsupported best guesses) rather than facts and data. This has led to many, many deficiencies at the individual statement level.
D. Oak Bay Statistics - Page #3
1. Oak Bay is at the extreme end of many of the federal statistics collected by agencies such as Stats Canada and CMHC, however this is not fully described/explained in the report, nor has it seemed to influence this report's interpretation of the data.
2. In comparison to Canadian, BC and Island communities, Oak Bay is at the extreme of:
a. - average age of residents.
b.- percentage of residents who are baby boomers (age 55-75) who are currently retiring enmass and therefore going through radical but predictable changes in needs and lifestyle.
c. - percentage of residents who are or who have been professionals, or have post secondary education (including college and university instructors, and corporate directors).
d. -percentage of retired employees from all levels of government and all levels of service (who have the time and the knowledge to voluntarily assist staff in projects such as this one).
e. -percentage of residents who are well above average wealth and also income.
f. -projected significant decline in population numbers from existing households, due the "widow" phenomena which will be the next natural phase of the baby boomers (an estimated decline of3,000 spouses "in place" over the next 15 years according to the Regional Growth Strategy).
g. -percentage of (temporarily housed) post secondary students.
h. - community desirability and livability index.
i. -profit incentive to provide short term rentals to vacationers and snow birds.
j.- speculative inflation of land prices (not building prices).
k. - shortage of suitable and affordable homes for young families.
I. - low rental vacancy rates.
m. -percentage of infrastructure known to be over aged.
n. -percentage of purpose built rental apartment buildings known to be over aged.
3. Due to these extremes, statistics and policy examples gathered at the regional or provincial level, or from surrounding local governments are unlikely to be applicable to Oak Bay and should not be quoted as applying to Oak Bay without disclaimers, and without adjustments that offset Oak Bay 's extremes. Even with such adjustments, "borrowed" statistics must be treated as notional rather than factual.
4. Since all of these extremes have not been taken into account, the resulting findings/predictions regarding housing trends/needs are flawed. For example in the Executive Summary, Key Findings, Estimated Units Need in Oak Bay - the findings predict a small positive growth in population and households, whereas the Regional Growth Strategy predicts a significant drop in the population of Oak Bay while the number of households remains constant.
5. Since the Executive summary numbers (above) come from the large "number crunching" section Population Projection (which includes household projection), this entire section must be viewed as untrustworthy or at best, notional.
6. The summary of Population Projection states that "Oak Bay is falling short of addressing regional growth pressures". The Regional Growth Strategy does not agree with this statement as it assumes that Oak Bay is about to enter an unstoppable demographic trend of significant "in place" loss of population which is not the fault of municipal policies.
7. Proposing to build new low income housing on the most expensive land in the CRD is a non-sequitur.
E. Methodology: - Page #4
1. The methodologies use to create this HNR are explained in the reports and they sound reasonable, however they are flawed, and this has flawed the end results.
2. The report quotes statistics from the OCP, rather from updated versions of the original source of the statistics. This nullifies one of the primary future uses of this report, i.e. to update the statistics in the OCP.
3. The report includes a long list of quotes from a survey which was part of the 2014 OCP project. Unfortunately there is no link to the results of that survey. This list is notional, not factual, as that survey was panned by statisticians because: the wording led the respondents to certain responses the selection of respondents was not a random sample across the population of Oak Bay.
I believe there is also a significant typo in the third highest point which should be "Enforce Secondary Suites" rather than "Regulate Secondary Suites". Keep in mind that Secondary Suites are already regulated and have been since the l940's.
4. A frequently used word is "Affordable" however nowhere in the report does it point out that in Oak Bay "Affordable" is synonymous with "Rental". Thus a critical finding is omitted which would affect housing policies regarding rentals. For example section 7.1 Housing Unaffordability does not expand on this rental finding but limits itself to options for ownership.
5. The methodology did not include public engagement. The issue here is not about public meetings, which would be unproductive for such a report, but that there was no early draft made available for public comment and feedback, which would have been far more efficient because submissions such as mine would have been available earlier in the process.
6. Oak Bay is brimming over with retired professional and government employees, who if they were asked, would have provided not just proof reading for content, but a depth of insight into the specific housing needs of this community. It was illogical not to tap this wise, enormous, and free resource.
7. The methodology did include discussions with Focus groups, however there are no links to the minutes or to the recordings of those sessions, or to any documents these participants submitted to this project, so this insight must be treated as notional (unsupported opinion) rather than factual.
8. One of the eventual beneficiaries of an HNR are the planners for the regional and provincial transit authorities. I could find no mention of consultation with those authorities.
9. One of the eventual beneficiaries of an HNR are environmental (climate change) planners at the regional and provincial level. I could find no mention of consultation with those planners.
10. One of the key constraints on planning a realistic Oak Bay housing policy is how much of an increase in density the aging infrastructure can support. I could find no mention of consultation with the engineering department.
F. Major Omission - Purpose Built Rentals - Page #5
1. Except for the Clive, all purpose built rental (PBR) multifamily apartments and duplexes in Oak Bay date from before the 1970's, and are over aged, and most need replacing or major renovations.
2. After the aging infrastructure, PBR's are the greatest single challenge facing the Oak Bay municipality in the coming decade, and yet there is no section dedicated to documenting and exploring the need for new and renewed PBR's and related issues. Thus other related sections which would have reference it are flawed. The term "Purpose Built" is rarely used in this report, but is mentioned in the description of the "missing middle" and "primary rental units".
3. The quoted statistic for the size of the PBR market in Oak Bay is 14%. Since there was no link to the source of this number, I had to manually search federal agencies for it. The number I found was 27%. The planning priority given to 27% would be far greater than that given to 14%.
4. The dire shortage of newish PBR suites is not unique to Oak Bay, but is a province wide crisis. It was an unintended consequence of a 40 year boom in building condo buildings instead of rentals, in order to maximize developers profits.
5. In BC, the dire shortage of new PBR suites is directly or indirectly related to all facets of the current housing crisis, and also to many facets of the.social services crisis. Since the election of the current provincial government, this single topic has become the top issue for housing planners, and also the top proposed solution for the housing crisis in all of BC's cities. And yet it is not mentioned in this HNR.
6. The Province takes the PBR crisis so seriously that it has granted local governments the unprecedented power to specify tenure in the zones of their zoning bylaw in order to strengthen their bargaining positions with the development industry regarding PBRs. For example, strata titles can now be excluded within zones.
7. Throughout the long unbroken term of the prior provincial government, the PBR crisis was down played (A result of intense lobbying by the condo development industry which was riding a wave of windfall profits). As a stop gap measure the province, and industry lobby organizations Urban Development Institute (UDI) being the largest), pressured local governments to ignore the critical need for a new supply of PBR's, and instead make up the rental shortages by allowing more Secondary Suites in Single Family Zones.
8. That this report does not identify or document Oak Bay's critical PBR needs, may indicate that this report has been influenced by UDI lobbyists.
9. The basic PBR suite unit which is required immediately in great quantities by Oak Bay is: Bright suite with two bedrooms, a balcony, an interesting view, and an in-suite laundry, that is in a new or modernized professionally managed low rise building with parking and an elevator, located in or very close to an existing shopping precinct on an existing transit line.
10. A ready supply of these basic PBR suites will provide the "missing middle" to the Oak Bay housing market. They are suitable for both senior couples with failing mobility, and young couples just starting a family.
11. As more senior couples with failing mobility are able to change tenure and homes from owning single family houses, to renting basic PBR suites, they will no longer be "stuck" in homes they can no longer maintain, so those family sized homes will become available to the kind of young families they were originally designed and built for. Basic PBR suites are the "missing middle" lubricant which will enable such positive and needed household transitions.
12. This report's section 7 Summary and Next Steps is deficient to the point of being useless because it does not incorporate the PBR challenge, or the widespread positive effects on the lifestyles of residents, and on the rental and ownership markets, that meeting/ exceeding this challenge will make. Every subsection needs to be rethought and restated to promote the undeniable importance of planning for the PBR challenge.
G. Major Omission- Facts about existing Secondary Suites and Duplexes - Page #6
1. A Secondary Suite study and planning project is well under way in Oak Bay and its delivery is immanent. It is therefore shocking in the extreme that this HNR does not include copious local facts about existing illegal secondary suites, legal non-conforming boarding suites, and legal non conforming rental duplexes (duplexes are the grown up sisters of large secondary suites in Single Family Zones).
2. This report should have included facts (not notional guesses) such as accurate numbers of each type of such rental accommodation, mapped concentrations of each, transit concentrations of each, breakdowns of age and condition of each, numbers of bedrooms built below grade in flood zones, etc, etc, etc.
3. The only such information supplied by this report seems to be either best guesses, or information extrapolated from regional based statistics or from numbers from bordering communities. In other words- notional information, not facts. This is a major omission which will make it impossible for the Council or the Public to evaluate proposed changes to the housing policies to allow additional families to be housed on Single Family lots.
4. When the province created the requirements for HNRs they were fully aware that some critical information was not available from the supply of statistical reports of government agencies. One of the reasons for the Grants was in the expectation that local governments would have to gather and assemble some of the factual information directly from their community. This has not been done.
H. Major Omission- Swing Space and Evictions - Page # 7
1. Swing space is temporary accommodation reserved for tenants forced to move out of their housing units while those units are being replaced or renovated . As such the need for swing space is directly connected to evictions, vacancy rates, building removals, major renovations, suite bylaw enforcement, and tenure changes from rental to strata.
In communities where vacancy rates exceed 5%, swing space is provided by the market. Where vacancy rates remain below 3% for extended periods (as in Oak Bay), swing space must be planned in order to mitigate necessary evictions. Therefore it becomes a housing need and should be included in this report, so that it can be planned for.
3. This report should have described: a- local availability of swing space b -local statistics on reno-victions
c -local statistics on demo-victions d - local statistics on strata-victions
e - local statistics on bylaw infraction evictions
f -existing policies which protect tenants from the above list, or support evictees
g - existing swing space policies which encourage and enable suite owners to renovate
h - existing policies which restrict bylaw enforcement during times of low vacancy rates.
I. Major Omission - Transit and Climate Change Considerations
1. When it comes to planning housing at the local level, the interest of Transit authorities and Climate Change planners have parallels. Both want to reduce the use of private automobiles and increase the use of transit. This coordinates their view of what they consider preferable local housing policies.
2. Both are proponents of Gentle Densification, which by definition is the addition of (multifamily) suites above and around existing shops in shopping precincts on existing transit lines. This minimizes the need for automobiles, maximizes pedestrian traffic, re-invigorates village centres, encourages transit use, and minimizes carbon emissions.
3. Gentle Densification encourages moderately higher densities in urban and semi-urban centres, rather than in the suburbs. It also encourages an increased supply of the base units of Purpose Built Rentals.
4. Increasing densities in suburban areas is discouraged by the transit and climate change planners because suburban lifestyles are more dependent on automobiles. Suburban densification includes Invisible densification (by definition suites added within existing single family houses), and Hidden densification (by definition suites in external buildings behind single family houses).
End of Submission
On December 13, 2019 a local newspaper account of a recent Council decision regarding a important Oak Bay, legislated Housing Needs Report (HNR) fell woefully short of responsible reporting. The article failed to report any of the resident presentations and submission content. It also did not report that the size, massing and impacts of the multi-use developments it referenced were the main reasons the developments were rejected by residents and Council.
On December 9, 2019 resident objections convinced Council that the Housing Needs Report, that cost tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars, must not be ratified as presented. Residents were concerned the HNR was inadequate; was a complex 46 page report released on short notice and was not in draft form. The primary purpose of a Housing Needs Report is to provide a full range of demographic information necessary to develop an Oak Bay “Comprehensive Housing Report” that, in full consultation with the community will maintain Oak Bay’s Identity.
At the December 9, 2019 back-to-back meetings, a Committee of the Whole (COW) and a regular Council meeting, It was decided to send a newly BC legislated, Oak Bay Housing Needs Report back to the consultant and staff for an acceptable revision. As indicated a number of residents at the meeting explained why this was and their written submissions and presentations explained why the HNR failed on so many levels.
The best that can be said about the Housing Needs Report and its content in its present form, is it is a very good bad example.
Mr. Steve Bowker, a long time Oak Bay resident, who obviously spent a great deal of time and effort, presented his submission. He outlined many of the Reports limitations and deficiencies. Page #1 of his submission (see Appendix #2 - below) highlights the risk to the community of Council’s even “Receiving” the Housing Needs Report. He explained that because the Report is: “legislated by the Local Government Act, the Act’s definition of Receive, which is ‘final approval’, applies. It is a certification by Council that the report is complete and accurate”.
Appendix #1 & #2 Submission - important sections for consideration are:
- See Appendix #2 – for special consideration important sections to be considered are: “D” that highlights important demographic trends and;
- “F” that provides a realistic development solution that addresses these trends – i.e more purpose built rentals will provide downsizing options for seniors and free up homes for young families, while ensuring Oak Bay’s desirability and livability and identity remain intact.
All Sumissions in Appendix #2 provide important information that is worth consideration
At the COW meeting residents and some Council members also pointed out:
- That too many consultants are being contracted with direct and indirect connections to the Urban Development Institute, that represents and lobbies for the commercial interests of the powerful Development and Real Estate Industries. Their reports and recommendations form a basis for the development of Oak Bay.
- Much of the information provided was readily available from published sources;
- Three “stakeholder” housing needs focus groups were held by the District on October 22, 2019. They were held out of public view and the participants mainly represented agencies from outside of Oak Bay. Each had its special interest housing development agenda. Nine pages, almost 25% of the Housing Needs Report, were dedicated to input from these agencies.
- The Housing Needs Report identified these outside agency workshops as “Civic Engagement”. However, residents were not considered “stakeholders” or represented. This means that, although the origin of the word “civic” means “citizen, the Oak Bay Planning Department had decided that residents had no need to be involved in developing the Housing Needs Report.
The Planning Department recommended that Council receive the Report and had a Council agenda approval item on the launching pad - ready for liftoff that same evening.
Oak Bay Watch Perspective
While we commended Council for sending the Housing Needs Report (HNR) back for much needed revision it is not clear what the revision will look like. For example in the original HNR report much of the outside agency “stakeholder” input included the recommendation of housing needs outside the jurisdiction, responsibility and funding of the District.
It was also not clear if residents will have any say or involvement in the final version of the $50,000 (budgeted) HNR document. A good start, before any revisions are considered, would be to hold three dedicated housing needs resident meetings. This would provide resident viewpoints and the same opportunities for community engagement as were accorded outside agencies.
At the COW meeting the Manager of Planning asked Council what changes they would like to see in the “modified” HNR even though there are extensive legislated requirements and guidelines to be followed, as Mr. Bowker pointed out, and many competent and appropriate models are available.
The HNR form asks, “What public engagement steps were undertaken? This form is mandatory and is to be included in the Housing Needs Report – it was not.
Note: The Planning Department continues to follow a very troubling procedure. While public engagement is continually claimed to be a valuable step, it is often only provided towards the end of the development or project process. For some time now this has been an issue for residents and Community groups alike.
The Housing Needs Report is a very important document. Although it is a component of the information needed for the Comprehensive Housing Report that will follow, it may not be considered as such. Important statistical information is missing and a lot of the HNR content is questionable and speculative. Oak Bay Watch’s concern is the “modified, revised” Housing Needs Report may not have sufficient (or any) resident input and may not be used for the legislated purpose it was intended to provide.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
*******Please help us continue to provide you with information about Community concerns and Council decisions and actions. Oak Bay Watch members also help community groups with their specific development concerns. Donate to Oak Bay Watch - even $5 or $10 dollars provides expenses for door- to- door handouts and helps us maintain our website. Oak Bay Watch is committed to ensuring the Community gets the full range of information on budget, governance and all key development issues – a well informed opinion cannot be made without this.
(Please use Donate Button at bottom of oakbaywatch.com Home Page)
Keep informed please sign up for our “based on facts” newsletter – bottom of Newsletter Menu Item.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appendix #1
Steve Bowker
At the December 9th Oak Bay Committee of the Whole meeting, the provincially legislated Housing Needs Report (HNR) was presented by members of the project team. There were also written submissions to Council from informed citizens regarding the HNR, all of which pointed out the inadequacies of the report.
Our councilors should be commended for voting to return the HNR to the project team for improvement, especially since under the same provincial legislation 'to receive' this specific report would be a certification by them that it was complete, accurate, and ready for use by other governments and agencies.
All of the resident submissions are well thought out and well written and are provided - see attached Appendix #2
Since the HNR requires much needed improvement, the existing version is only useful for comparison purposes. However every resident with an interest in the future of Oak Bay should read the information provided in Appendix #2, Submission #3.
As indicated the important sections which everyone needs to read are:
On Page #3 Section "D". Oak Bay Statistics
Lists the extreme demographic trends which are shaping Oak Bay’s future.
On Page #5 Section F. Major Omission – Purpose Built Rentals
Identifies and describes the second most critical challenge to the community after it’s aging infrastructure, and describes how addressing it will solve many of the problems caused by our extreme demographics.
It also describes what would be a desirable planning outcome from those two perspectives.
If you read nothing else on Council’s agendas this year, it has been suggested you read those three sections.
++++++++++++++
Appendix #2
Council Committee of the Whole December 9, 2019 Resident Submissions
For reference: For the submitted December 9, 2019 Housing Needs Report see Council Committee of the Whole Agenda Item #1
Oak Bay Municipal Website / Municipal Hall / Meetings & Minutes/ Past Meetings / COW Agenda
December 9, 2019 Resident Submissions
Submission #1
Dear Mayor and Councillors,
James Sultanum December-08-19 3:22PM
Mayor Kevin Murdoch; Hazel Braithwaite; Esther Paterson; Eric Wood Zhelka; Tara Ney; Andrew Appleton; Cairine Green
Oak Bay Council
Submission-Cow (agenda item 1) - Housing Needs Report
Comments - House Needs Report.docx; Comments - House Needs Report (pdf.}.pdf
Please find attached comments on the Housing Needs Report (HNR) - COW agenda item 1. It is my hope that some of the issues I raise are incorporated into the document, should you agree with me that the document before you is presented as a "draft" at this point.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer suggestions.
Respectfully, James Sultanum
Comments on the House Needs Report (HNR)
James Sultanum, South Oak Bay resident
Definitions: HNR
The HNR points out that 996 households are needed in OB by 2024. "Household" and "units" are used interchangeably throughout the document. It is not clear whether the need for housing was measured by the "number of bedrooms" available in the community or by the number of single-family houses, number of duplexes, number of units per apartment building, and so on. Consistency and clarity in definitions are key to avoid misunderstandings by developers and residents alike, particularly as one of the "Moving Forward" recommendation is to promote "ongoing education and engagement with the community".
Housing and Zoning: It would have been ideal if the HNR offered some sort of hint as to how the 996 households required will impact zoning. What is the next step as far as zoning goes? How does the HNR inform in a concrete way the work that will need to be done as far as the zoning bylaw update goes. It is also unclear who, how and when housing types by neighbourhood (OB locations) will be defined. It seems to me that the type of housing required in North Henderson, for example, differs from those of South Oak Bay, the waterfront or the village.
Scope and non-binding nature:
The HNR mentioned that it can be used "to support the development of the Housing Framework in Oak Bay". It is not clear what the difference is between the HNR before you and a "Housing Framework". Is there a common understanding among council, staff and residents of what the Framework means and entails? Is the Framework a separate document to be contracted out? Who has the mandate and authority to approve the recommendations of the Housing Framework: Council or Staff only?
Will the acceptance of the HNR automatically bind council to adopt the numbers, targets and house forms mentioned throughout the document? Council is responsiblefor developing policy, regulations and guidelines to implement housing options. If the HNR is or is not binding, then this must be clearly stated in the documents. This will prevent misunderstanding and pressure by developers and residents when conflicting interests arise. There have been cases of conflict in the community: some claim that the OCP alone is sufficient to justify and legally back up all sorts of development, even though it lacks meaningful teeth and concrete parameters.
It is my understanding that the HNR is merely another resource to inform decision-making and development. It is not a binding document that will tie up council and staff. It would be nice to have this explained and incorporated to the HNR in writing.
Basic information about the financial impact of densification on service delivery It is important that the document acknowledges that the implementation of its findings will result in financial impact on both the District's ability to handle the resulting workload (e.g. staffing)Households in the secondary market
Theme "Declining rental stock": HNR
How did the consultant came up with the 750 figure for "households rented in the secondary market in 2016". Does this number refer to or include secondary suites rental? If so, how was this number obtained? The document mentions that "it is suspected that the supply of units rented in the secondary market may have declined". This is a strong statement. It would be desirable to substantiate this assertion with real numbers. How was this trend in suite rental decline measured?
The "house poor"
"Housing in Extreme Core Housing Needs"- The numbers of resident in this situation seems to have varied considerably over the years as pointed out: 2006 (65 households); 2011 ( 1 20 households; 201 6 (85 households) - It is unclear where these numbers came from. Figure 4 on page 7 shows that 50% of homeowners in OB earn less than $39,999. Further analysis of this trend is required so that the District fully understand what concrete intervention is needed to address this share of the population (if my interpretation of these numbers is accurate). In principle, the figures presented on HNR page 6 conflict with the figures of HNR page 7.
The elderly: "Special Needs" residents and home suitability
The HNR does not seem to offer concrete steps to address this specific population. Any consultation with groups working and advocating for the elderly? What about Island Health? Silver Tread? I also miss clear reference to OB's Age-friendly Strategy and to a number of recommendations contained in the provinciai"Aging well in British Columbia" document. The latter points out the need to establish "specific targets" for new affordable housing for the elderly. Documents and strategies in general have address the issue of elders in a philosophical manner, with limited substance in regards to concrete targets and recommendations.
Health and Safety
In the Executive Summary" and throughout the document
The Report points out to a declining trend in the supply of "safe" a_nd affordable housing. Although somewhat true, I'm curious to learn how "safety decline" was measured. If decline in safety was measured, then unsafe housing is a concern and a possible liability once it's been identified by the District and the consultant. It would be useful if the document gave us a hint as to what the District can do to mitigate unsafe homes (e.g. advocate for the Province to fund upgrades/retrofit efforts?); Should the District decommission unsafe housing, including secondary suites while at the same time it promotes density? Restrictions pertaining occupant safety is a reality in Oak Bay. This is particularly the case of secondary housing such as basement suites. Safety is also a concern for the elderly, the house poor, not to mention derelict homes. 'Safety and Suitability' are topics that deserve a separate heading and specific analysis. It is unclear how safety issues will affect the projected housing needs and future inventory.
Oak Bay Lodge
The document states that District should "encourage more housing for seniors, and those with disability"- Regardless of who owns what, it would be desirable if the HNR acknowledged the role of OB Lodge in the context of housing and aging. Question: How should the District approach OB Lodge or its potential upgrade? Advocate? Invest? We are a small municipality. It is my opinion that the document should give council and the community basic recommendations regarding Oak Bay Loge and other care facilities.
Need for adequate public infrastructure
A statement or acknowledgement that growth has impact on the need for improved public infrastructure is required (e.g. funding infrastructure for safe access of residents in general and "special needs" in particular to key locations in the community- fixing sidewalks, for example. Housing needs and adequate infrastructure to accommodate growth go hand in hand.
Dwellings with suites and other housing forms - HNR
Figure 8 indicates that there are currently 496 dwellings with suites in OB. There is a concrete possibility that this is under reported. Residents are reluctant to report secondary suites as they fear decommissioning by the District. It is possible that this figure is much higher, probably double the number indicated in the HNR is (anecdotal). It does not reflect the reality on the ground. Decisions about secondary suites must take into consideration the impact of this discrepancy on the need for other forms of dwellings - how many multi-family dwelling should be built in OB vis-a vis the number of existing suites, for example. Question: Will the District set targets (number of units) for different forms of housing? Should it? It would be nice if the HNR gave us a hint on how to deal with these trade-offs.
Exact number of newly built dwellings - HNR
The report indicates that 125 "units" were built between 2011 and 2016, "reflecting the slow growth in the community. It is difficult to understand the significance of this figure as it doesn't seem to indicate how many of those 125 units built are replacement of OB's old stock (125 units divided by 5 years= average of 25 units per years). If "units" refers to dwellings (as opposed to bedrooms- not clear), then the 1 33 figure of new homes, on page 22 -top left hand side, conflicts with the 125 reported.
Cost of living in 08 - HNR
Figure 13 ("Median Shelter Costs for Owner and Rented dwellings in Oak Bay, 2006 to 2016") - Further analysis is required. It is not clear how increasing the housing supply will affect or reduce the cost of "shelter" of current homeowners in Oak Bay. If the idea is to promote aging in place and attract new residents, then a recommendation to council on ways to reduce the cost of keeping a home in OB would be desirable. If not possible, then a clear statement about the need to reduce the cost of living in OB from 34% to the 30% of a household income, as recommended by the Province. It is important that the document acknowledges the District's role in reducing living costs. A review of performance measurement in/of the District is a way to assess what can be achieved in cost reduction in the short and long-run.
Inclusion and diversification - HNR
The NHR singles out "same sex couples" as a vulnerable population in the housing context. Being in a same-sex relationship myself, I accept a general notion that LGBT has struggled with discrimination in many ways. It is not appropriate however to label LGBT as "vulnerable" or special needs in the context of OB housing. "Same sex couples" are the same as straight couples, some can afford to live in OB, others cannot. The categorization is not appropriate; it is demeaning. It is also worth mentioning that a very important vulnerable group was not considered or mentioned in the report: newcomers to Canada. Immigrants are an integral part of Canada and struggle with affordability throughout the CRD. Newcomers are not in OB for the most part. OB is not diverse from an ethnocultural point-of-view. Sensitive topic, yes but, ignoring this group in a housing context is detrimental to the idea of diversification and inclusion.
Fourplexes - HNR - Refers to opportunities to increase density
Reference is made to "fourplexes". This form of housing has been rejected by the community and should not be considered as a viable option for density increase in Oak Bay.
Establishing realistic benchmarks and indicators - HNR. The document indicates that 08 gained only 9 homes between 2006 and 2019. I assume that this figure does not include "replacement houses" nor does it include other types of infill built in the same period. There is a possibility that this figure is much higher. If this is the case, then adjustments to the number of "units" needed "in the next few years"- as described, may vary substantially.
Short-term rentals - HNR The end of item 7.5. "Declining Rental Stock"
The HNR mentions that "[the] data in Oak Bay" shows that there is no concern about losing long-term stock to short-term rental. This is a very strong statement. Short-term rentals appear to have increased in Oak Bay over recent years. Putting a policy and regulations in place for short-term rental must be deemed priority by council. It is not clear which "data in Oak Bay" supports the assumption. AirBnb numbers only do not reflect the real number of short-term rental in the community. Addressing short-term and vacation rentals is very important as they affect the District's ability to increase OB housing inventory for families willing to settle in the community.
Affordability to age in place - HNR
The HNR shows that 50% of homeowners in Oak Bay earn less than 39,999. This figure is significant. The assertion that "Household in Oak Bay are higher income, and many will likely be able to afford home care and other services to age in place does not match the reality on the ground. Low income and increase in cost of living in OB are actually likely to prevent 50% of residents from aging in place.
Fall - 2019
Submission #2
Michael Wilmut - Oak Bay Council
Housing Needs Report Item 1COW December 9, 2109
Dear Mayor and Council,
I just saw the above long awaited Housing Needs Repor prepared by Urban Matters for Monday's COW meeting today (Saturday). This important document as you know is 46 pages long. Two days is an unacceptable time to critique it - if this Council sincerely believes in community engagement.
As well a report of this magnitude should be readable, stand alone, accurate and complete. It is none of these. For example there are no indexes, no appendices, missing considerations and many conclusions based on questionable logic and data. The report is at best a good first draft.
I suggest Council pass a motion such as:
"Staff will consider the document as a draft. A revised document will be prepared by Staff for Council. The community will have input to the revised report, including the opportunity the make written and possibly oral submissions."
Mike Wilmut - Oak Bay
Submission #3
Steve Bowker - December-06-19 8:26 PM Oak Bay Council
Mayor Kevin Murdoch; Andrew Appleton; Cairine Green; Eric Wood Zhelka; Esther Paterson; Hazel Braithwaite; Tara Ney.
Submission to Dec 9, 2019 COW and Council Meeting
Bowker - Submission to Council 2019-12-09.pdf
To the Mayor in Council,
Please find attached my submission to the Monday, Dec 9, 2019 COW and Council Meeting. It refers to the Housing Needs Report which is on the agenda for both meetings.
Note: the CC list of this email. The mayor and all councillors already have a copy of my submission in their official in-baskets.
Yours truly,Stephen Bowker
Mayor in Council of the District of Oak Bay
Stephen Bowker
Submitted: December 06, 2019 - Oak Bay
Page #1
Re: Submission to 2019-12-09 COW and Council Meeting regarding the acceptance of the Housing Needs Report. A provincially mandated (and subsidized) report which is legislated to provide comprehensive fact based information, data, trends and projections on which to base five years of planning amendments to the Official Community Plan (OCP).
Recommendation: I respectfully request that the Housing Needs Report be postponed until it can be corrected for line item errors and section omissions, and generally improved and deepened so that it will better support critical planning decisions upcoming over the next five years at the local, regional, and provincial government levels.
To this end I respectfully request that the improvement/correction process include a public engagement process which asks local residents of all tenures to submit written suggestions for improving/correcting/deepening the report.
Context:
This report in its current incarnation is so deficient as to be misleading of the current housing challenges and demographic trends of Oak Bay. As such it cannot be trusted as a comprehensive source of information on which to base future planning decisions which defeats the underlying purpose of a Housing Needs Report. It therefore does not meet the minimum requirements for such a report as described at great length by the Province. Although the local planning office would have access to other local information to make up for this report's deficiencies, other levels of government would have no such access. Keep in mind that this Report has a five year cycle so quality is critical.
There are legal and other implications to Council officially "Receiving" this provincially mandated (and subsidized) Report. The "receiving" process is in effect a "certification" process whereby Council "certifies" the report to be complete and accurate for use by other levels of government in their planning processes, who will accept that certification of accuracy without question. "Receiving" such a Report which is known to be deficient, disregards the legal and contractual requirements of the Provincial Local Government Act (LGA) and the Terms of the Grant administered by Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM).
From the public engagement perspective, receiving and publishing a Housing Needs Report which is known to be deficient means that for the next five years the public will not have the full comprehensive information/data/demographics/facts/trends on which to base their evaluation of any future proposed changes to the OCP regarding housing policy.
Background:
After noticing some line item errors in the Executive Summary of this Report, I opened my word processor and began keeping a list of errors/omissions/inadequacies. When I found the first major omission of an entire housing areas and issues, I decided this submission was required.
The bulk of this submission is in my submission, which is a general critique of this Housing Needs Report. For reasons of brevity and time I have only described major issues rather than specific line item errors. As a good citizen and retired, I will freely offer my time, insight and copious notes to help the Urban Matters consultants to correct and deepen this report, however my assistance should be part of an official public engagement process; and I respectfully request that I be granted some official capacity in that process, for instance as a member of a Commission.
Yours truly, Stephen Bowker
Bowker- Submission to COW and Council 2019-12-09
APPENDIX- General Deficiencies of the Housing Needs Report - Page #2
A. Preamble:
I am a professional writer. During my long career with the provincial government, I authored many Reference and Analysis documents. With a reference document, complete and accurate content is vital. Also vital is a document structure which enables users to quickly find the information they are interested in, and then point others to it. 'Designer' layouts, fonts, coloured text, and presentation formats are unnecessary, but if they are used they should in no way impede the users from skim reading, speed reading, and scanning for the information they need. For documents which will mainly be accessed via display screens, rather than in print, two-up layouts should be avoided.
B. Presentation:
1. An HNR is first and foremost meant to be a fundamental reference document which lends itself to research and quotations. Instead, this report presents itself as a public relations document.
2. The landscape, two-up layout is aimed at printing, however most of the end users of this document will view it, skim it, and search it on a display screen. On a display screen this layout impedes the user. For instance, on my high-end laptop, if I zoom to fit both sides of the two up at the same time, the coloured text font is too light and small for me to read (black text on white would have been more readable). If I zoom in to increase the font, navigation between the two-up pages becomes frustrating and clumsy.
3. When printed, this document wastes paper due to the amount of white space, and wastes ink due to the colour graphics, coloured text and other unnecessary window dressing. It will be costly to print in part or in whole on the public's home printers.
4. The utility of this document would be vastly improved simply by pulling the content out of the presentation layout and dropping it into a KISS Word one-up print layout using black on white text.
C. Structure:
1. Although the divisions and sections have a numbering system, the number system does not extend to the important (quotable) lines of information and findings. Without such numbering it will be difficult to specifically reference key information/ findings and pass them to others, and it will be time consuming to locate them.
2. Some of the graphs do not match the numbers they are graphing. Solid coloured bar graphs suck printer ink.
3. Important facts from other sources such as federal government agencies are not specifically referenced by web link and/or quote, so the facts cannot be easily checked, and the related context and other information originally presented by those agencies is not at the users's finger tips. Such references are usually contained in one of the appendices.
4. Long, embedded descriptive paragraphs break up and dilute the presented stats/data/ info (for instance explaining methods and approaches). These should be moved to an appendix and just referenced in the body of the document should users want to know about such things.
5. There are no appendices. A fundamental reference document such as this should have several appendices supporting the body of the document and the findings that it presents. Not the least of the appendices should be the raw data/info that was used to create the report, which under provincial requirements should also be published.
6. The primary difference between HNRs and other related studies, is that by provincial requirements, the HNR is supposed to be based upon, and present documented facts, statistics, demographics etc. Many of the points, findings, and projections made by this report are shallow and speculative as they are supported only by notional information, (ie: popular opinions, unsupported opinions from focus groups, and unsupported best guesses) rather than facts and data. This has led to many, many deficiencies at the individual statement level.
D. Oak Bay Statistics - Page #3
1. Oak Bay is at the extreme end of many of the federal statistics collected by agencies such as Stats Canada and CMHC, however this is not fully described/explained in the report, nor has it seemed to influence this report's interpretation of the data.
2. In comparison to Canadian, BC and Island communities, Oak Bay is at the extreme of:
a. - average age of residents.
b.- percentage of residents who are baby boomers (age 55-75) who are currently retiring enmass and therefore going through radical but predictable changes in needs and lifestyle.
c. - percentage of residents who are or who have been professionals, or have post secondary education (including college and university instructors, and corporate directors).
d. -percentage of retired employees from all levels of government and all levels of service (who have the time and the knowledge to voluntarily assist staff in projects such as this one).
e. -percentage of residents who are well above average wealth and also income.
f. -projected significant decline in population numbers from existing households, due the "widow" phenomena which will be the next natural phase of the baby boomers (an estimated decline of3,000 spouses "in place" over the next 15 years according to the Regional Growth Strategy).
g. -percentage of (temporarily housed) post secondary students.
h. - community desirability and livability index.
i. -profit incentive to provide short term rentals to vacationers and snow birds.
j.- speculative inflation of land prices (not building prices).
k. - shortage of suitable and affordable homes for young families.
I. - low rental vacancy rates.
m. -percentage of infrastructure known to be over aged.
n. -percentage of purpose built rental apartment buildings known to be over aged.
3. Due to these extremes, statistics and policy examples gathered at the regional or provincial level, or from surrounding local governments are unlikely to be applicable to Oak Bay and should not be quoted as applying to Oak Bay without disclaimers, and without adjustments that offset Oak Bay 's extremes. Even with such adjustments, "borrowed" statistics must be treated as notional rather than factual.
4. Since all of these extremes have not been taken into account, the resulting findings/predictions regarding housing trends/needs are flawed. For example in the Executive Summary, Key Findings, Estimated Units Need in Oak Bay - the findings predict a small positive growth in population and households, whereas the Regional Growth Strategy predicts a significant drop in the population of Oak Bay while the number of households remains constant.
5. Since the Executive summary numbers (above) come from the large "number crunching" section Population Projection (which includes household projection), this entire section must be viewed as untrustworthy or at best, notional.
6. The summary of Population Projection states that "Oak Bay is falling short of addressing regional growth pressures". The Regional Growth Strategy does not agree with this statement as it assumes that Oak Bay is about to enter an unstoppable demographic trend of significant "in place" loss of population which is not the fault of municipal policies.
7. Proposing to build new low income housing on the most expensive land in the CRD is a non-sequitur.
E. Methodology: - Page #4
1. The methodologies use to create this HNR are explained in the reports and they sound reasonable, however they are flawed, and this has flawed the end results.
2. The report quotes statistics from the OCP, rather from updated versions of the original source of the statistics. This nullifies one of the primary future uses of this report, i.e. to update the statistics in the OCP.
3. The report includes a long list of quotes from a survey which was part of the 2014 OCP project. Unfortunately there is no link to the results of that survey. This list is notional, not factual, as that survey was panned by statisticians because: the wording led the respondents to certain responses the selection of respondents was not a random sample across the population of Oak Bay.
I believe there is also a significant typo in the third highest point which should be "Enforce Secondary Suites" rather than "Regulate Secondary Suites". Keep in mind that Secondary Suites are already regulated and have been since the l940's.
4. A frequently used word is "Affordable" however nowhere in the report does it point out that in Oak Bay "Affordable" is synonymous with "Rental". Thus a critical finding is omitted which would affect housing policies regarding rentals. For example section 7.1 Housing Unaffordability does not expand on this rental finding but limits itself to options for ownership.
5. The methodology did not include public engagement. The issue here is not about public meetings, which would be unproductive for such a report, but that there was no early draft made available for public comment and feedback, which would have been far more efficient because submissions such as mine would have been available earlier in the process.
6. Oak Bay is brimming over with retired professional and government employees, who if they were asked, would have provided not just proof reading for content, but a depth of insight into the specific housing needs of this community. It was illogical not to tap this wise, enormous, and free resource.
7. The methodology did include discussions with Focus groups, however there are no links to the minutes or to the recordings of those sessions, or to any documents these participants submitted to this project, so this insight must be treated as notional (unsupported opinion) rather than factual.
8. One of the eventual beneficiaries of an HNR are the planners for the regional and provincial transit authorities. I could find no mention of consultation with those authorities.
9. One of the eventual beneficiaries of an HNR are environmental (climate change) planners at the regional and provincial level. I could find no mention of consultation with those planners.
10. One of the key constraints on planning a realistic Oak Bay housing policy is how much of an increase in density the aging infrastructure can support. I could find no mention of consultation with the engineering department.
F. Major Omission - Purpose Built Rentals - Page #5
1. Except for the Clive, all purpose built rental (PBR) multifamily apartments and duplexes in Oak Bay date from before the 1970's, and are over aged, and most need replacing or major renovations.
2. After the aging infrastructure, PBR's are the greatest single challenge facing the Oak Bay municipality in the coming decade, and yet there is no section dedicated to documenting and exploring the need for new and renewed PBR's and related issues. Thus other related sections which would have reference it are flawed. The term "Purpose Built" is rarely used in this report, but is mentioned in the description of the "missing middle" and "primary rental units".
3. The quoted statistic for the size of the PBR market in Oak Bay is 14%. Since there was no link to the source of this number, I had to manually search federal agencies for it. The number I found was 27%. The planning priority given to 27% would be far greater than that given to 14%.
4. The dire shortage of newish PBR suites is not unique to Oak Bay, but is a province wide crisis. It was an unintended consequence of a 40 year boom in building condo buildings instead of rentals, in order to maximize developers profits.
5. In BC, the dire shortage of new PBR suites is directly or indirectly related to all facets of the current housing crisis, and also to many facets of the.social services crisis. Since the election of the current provincial government, this single topic has become the top issue for housing planners, and also the top proposed solution for the housing crisis in all of BC's cities. And yet it is not mentioned in this HNR.
6. The Province takes the PBR crisis so seriously that it has granted local governments the unprecedented power to specify tenure in the zones of their zoning bylaw in order to strengthen their bargaining positions with the development industry regarding PBRs. For example, strata titles can now be excluded within zones.
7. Throughout the long unbroken term of the prior provincial government, the PBR crisis was down played (A result of intense lobbying by the condo development industry which was riding a wave of windfall profits). As a stop gap measure the province, and industry lobby organizations Urban Development Institute (UDI) being the largest), pressured local governments to ignore the critical need for a new supply of PBR's, and instead make up the rental shortages by allowing more Secondary Suites in Single Family Zones.
8. That this report does not identify or document Oak Bay's critical PBR needs, may indicate that this report has been influenced by UDI lobbyists.
9. The basic PBR suite unit which is required immediately in great quantities by Oak Bay is: Bright suite with two bedrooms, a balcony, an interesting view, and an in-suite laundry, that is in a new or modernized professionally managed low rise building with parking and an elevator, located in or very close to an existing shopping precinct on an existing transit line.
10. A ready supply of these basic PBR suites will provide the "missing middle" to the Oak Bay housing market. They are suitable for both senior couples with failing mobility, and young couples just starting a family.
11. As more senior couples with failing mobility are able to change tenure and homes from owning single family houses, to renting basic PBR suites, they will no longer be "stuck" in homes they can no longer maintain, so those family sized homes will become available to the kind of young families they were originally designed and built for. Basic PBR suites are the "missing middle" lubricant which will enable such positive and needed household transitions.
12. This report's section 7 Summary and Next Steps is deficient to the point of being useless because it does not incorporate the PBR challenge, or the widespread positive effects on the lifestyles of residents, and on the rental and ownership markets, that meeting/ exceeding this challenge will make. Every subsection needs to be rethought and restated to promote the undeniable importance of planning for the PBR challenge.
G. Major Omission- Facts about existing Secondary Suites and Duplexes - Page #6
1. A Secondary Suite study and planning project is well under way in Oak Bay and its delivery is immanent. It is therefore shocking in the extreme that this HNR does not include copious local facts about existing illegal secondary suites, legal non-conforming boarding suites, and legal non conforming rental duplexes (duplexes are the grown up sisters of large secondary suites in Single Family Zones).
2. This report should have included facts (not notional guesses) such as accurate numbers of each type of such rental accommodation, mapped concentrations of each, transit concentrations of each, breakdowns of age and condition of each, numbers of bedrooms built below grade in flood zones, etc, etc, etc.
3. The only such information supplied by this report seems to be either best guesses, or information extrapolated from regional based statistics or from numbers from bordering communities. In other words- notional information, not facts. This is a major omission which will make it impossible for the Council or the Public to evaluate proposed changes to the housing policies to allow additional families to be housed on Single Family lots.
4. When the province created the requirements for HNRs they were fully aware that some critical information was not available from the supply of statistical reports of government agencies. One of the reasons for the Grants was in the expectation that local governments would have to gather and assemble some of the factual information directly from their community. This has not been done.
H. Major Omission- Swing Space and Evictions - Page # 7
1. Swing space is temporary accommodation reserved for tenants forced to move out of their housing units while those units are being replaced or renovated . As such the need for swing space is directly connected to evictions, vacancy rates, building removals, major renovations, suite bylaw enforcement, and tenure changes from rental to strata.
In communities where vacancy rates exceed 5%, swing space is provided by the market. Where vacancy rates remain below 3% for extended periods (as in Oak Bay), swing space must be planned in order to mitigate necessary evictions. Therefore it becomes a housing need and should be included in this report, so that it can be planned for.
3. This report should have described: a- local availability of swing space b -local statistics on reno-victions
c -local statistics on demo-victions d - local statistics on strata-victions
e - local statistics on bylaw infraction evictions
f -existing policies which protect tenants from the above list, or support evictees
g - existing swing space policies which encourage and enable suite owners to renovate
h - existing policies which restrict bylaw enforcement during times of low vacancy rates.
I. Major Omission - Transit and Climate Change Considerations
1. When it comes to planning housing at the local level, the interest of Transit authorities and Climate Change planners have parallels. Both want to reduce the use of private automobiles and increase the use of transit. This coordinates their view of what they consider preferable local housing policies.
2. Both are proponents of Gentle Densification, which by definition is the addition of (multifamily) suites above and around existing shops in shopping precincts on existing transit lines. This minimizes the need for automobiles, maximizes pedestrian traffic, re-invigorates village centres, encourages transit use, and minimizes carbon emissions.
3. Gentle Densification encourages moderately higher densities in urban and semi-urban centres, rather than in the suburbs. It also encourages an increased supply of the base units of Purpose Built Rentals.
4. Increasing densities in suburban areas is discouraged by the transit and climate change planners because suburban lifestyles are more dependent on automobiles. Suburban densification includes Invisible densification (by definition suites added within existing single family houses), and Hidden densification (by definition suites in external buildings behind single family houses).
End of Submission