To the Mayor and Council
District of Oak Bay
September 9, 2014
I am strongly opposed to the major policy of the Plan as set out in Part 1.6.2,
The intent of that policy is to encourage population growth in Oak Bay and to do that by infilling our residential neighborhoods. There is no evidence that the population of Oak Bay is expected to increase substantially in the foreseeable future. There is no any evidence that our district needs to promote an increase in its population. There is no compelling evidence that our district needs to infill our residential neighborhoods with suites and laneway houses.
In short there is no need to either increase our population or to convert our single family dwelling residential neighborhoods into multiple family dwelling neighborhoods
Regional Growth Strategy
Section 866 of the Local Government Act says that the plan must be consistent with the Capital Regional District’s regional growth strategy. The growth strategy is to keep urban settlement compact, in other words, to minimize urban sprawl. The Plan’s response to the strategy is: “Oak Bay is already compact. The Plan plans for it to become more compact with an increase of up to 1800 people in the next 10 years. Infill is the primary tool for increasing density. “
The meaning of the word “compact” is “to occupy a small volume by reason of efficient use of space”. Oak Bay is very small. Its area is only 10.5 square kilometers. The boundaries of Oak Bay are fixed. It can never grow in size. All of Oak Bay is fully developed. It does not have any unsettled areas. Urban settlement in Oak Bay cannot sprawl either inside its borders or outside its borders.
As the OCP acknowledges, Oak Bay’s urban settlement is already compact. Nothing more had to be said in the OCP in response to the regional growth strategy. Densification of our District will not make it more compact. It will just make it more dense.
The Plan must only address the demonstrated housing needs of District residents
Section 877 of the Act says that the Plan must include a statement about residential development required to meet anticipated housing needs over at least the next 5 years. This plan is supposed to be for the benefit of our District and the residents of our District. First and foremost this Plan must meet the anticipated residential needs of our District’s residents, not the wishes of people who don’t live here.
Part 2.3 of the plan says that a concern in Oak Bay is that a lack of housing options is limiting the ability of many people to live or remain living in Oak Bay. The plan is supposed to address needs, not unsubstantiated concerns. There is no evidence in this plan or anywhere else that Oak Bay residents are crying out for more housing. There is no way that unsubstantiated or even anecdotal concerns should turn our district upside down by converting our single family dwelling neighborhoods into multiple family dwelling neighborhoods
Housing and accommodation in Oak Bay is not broken. Our present zoning bylaws limiting the use of our single family dwelling residential neighborhoods are not creating any housing problems or hardships. The population of Oak Bay in 1981 was 17,800 people. The population of Oak Bay today is just over 18,000.
So in the last 30 years or more the population of Oak Bay has increased by only about 200 people. That’s an average increase in our population over the last 30 years of about 7 people per year. Expressed as a percentage, that is an average increase of about .04 per cent per year.An average increase of 7 people per year over the last 30 years is no reason to convert our single family dwelling neighborhoods into multiple family dwelling neighborhoods..
Part 2.5 of the new Community Plan says “The plan is for ‘Oak Bay’ to become more compact with an increase of up to 1,800 people over the next 10 years.” That’s an average increase in population of 180 people per year. That’s a total increase in the population over the next 10 years of 10 per cent.
The population increase that the Plan wants to promote over the next 10 years is over 25 times more than what the increase has been over the past 30 years.
We should not be promoting an increase in the population in Oak Bay. All that will do will create a demand for more housing. Oak Bay is safe, quiet, stable, and lightly populated.
It has all of the amenities that a person needs. It is one of a very few urban areas in Canada where people can escape the deep freeze of winter. Those qualities make it one of the most sought after places to live in all of Canada. Canada’s increasing population appears to be never ending. We will continue to see a rising flood of newcomers to this area who want to live in our district.
Not surprisingly Part 2.3 of the proposed Plan says that the stability of our resident population “makes it difficult for those who may want to relocate into Oak Bay”. It is patently obvious that the Plan’s policy to increase the population of Oak Bay is intended to cater to the desires of non-Oak Bay residents who want to live in our district.. We have no obligation to accommodate non-residents of Oak Bay who want to move here.
Until there is clear and solid evidence that Oak Bay needs an increase in our population and do that by infilling our residential neighborhoods, this district should not be promoting doing something which will be detrimental to the lives of our established residents.
Oak Bay’s core feature and what we must protect
Our population has remained virtually static over the past 30 years. There is nothing to suggest that there is any risk of that changing. There is no doubt that the high standard of living and quality of life that we enjoy in our District is second to none. The population density of our neighborhoods is low. Streets are not busy and congested with traffic. Our neighborhoods are not choked with parked cars lining the sides of our streets.
Our neighborhoods are quiet and safe. Our residents can still drive easily through Oak Bay. They can still conveniently park on streets in front of their homes. Our residential neighborhoods are as good as they can be in an urban area. At the very core of what defines Oak Bay’s unique residential character is that Oak Bay’s residential neighborhoods are made up of single-family dwellings.
While other municipalities have allowed the infilling and densification of their residential neighborhoods, Oak Bay has not. Oak Bay’s single-family dwelling neighborhoods are what make it better than any other area in the greater Victoria.
That is why people want to live in Oak Bay. Our single family dwelling neighborhoods are what we must protect and preserve if we want to keep the best of what we have in Oak Bay. Densification will reduce the quality of life in Oak Bay neighborhoods. It will spoil our safe, quiet, uncluttered, and uncrowded neighborhoods. The damage that infilling and densification has done to other communities has shown us that infilling and densification will be bad for our district as well
A comparison of Oak Bay and Fairfield, and a bad vision of what could come
I have lived in Greater Victoria for over 40 years. The first 12 years I lived in South Fairfield. For the last 29 years I have lived in Oak Bay. During the first two years that I was here I was a teacher at Monterey Elementary School. I am more than just familiar with both Fairfield and Oak Bay. I have seen the evolution of those areas over the last 40 years. When I first came to Victoria, both areas were virtually indistinguishable from one another.
The population density in both areas was low. Vehicle traffic on the streets was minimal. Street parking was always available and convenient.
Oak Bay has continued to prevent the densification of its residential neighborhoods. Victoria has not. In the past couple of decades south Fairfield has become very different from south Oak Bay. Many residential streets in south Fairfield are now choked with traffic and on street parking. On many streets in south Fairfield, parking is always at a premium, usually inconvenient, and at times simply impossible to find.
On McKenzie Street for example which runs between Moss Street and Cook Street, parking congestion on both sides of the street became so bad that traffic could not travel in both directions at the same time. Parking is now allowed only on one side of the street, further reducing on street parking availability. Some residents have resorted to putting driveways and parking areas in their front yards in order to park their vehicles near their homes.
If Oak Bay allows the densification of its single family neighborhoods they will become just like south Fairfield. I don’t want to find myself living on a street like that, and I don’t think any of you do either.
More people and the infilling of our residential neighborhoods will mean more motor vehicles, more air pollution, more traffic congestion, more on street parking congestion, more paving of green spaces for parking like the area that was just finished this summer between the rec- center and the municipal yard, more noise , more annoying sounds of barking dogs and dog owners who yell at them, more car alarms, more police sirens in the middle of the night, more buildings on residential lots, more overshadowing of neighboring properties, more demands upon our infrastructure, more repairs to the infrastructure, more municipal employees, more municipal costs, more bylaws, more annoying and damaging bylaw infractions.
The list of problems can go on and on. Those problems all add up to create more unhappiness, more animosity, and more conflict among residents. We must learn from the mistakes that other municipalities have made by infilling their residential neighborhoods. We can’t ignore them, and we must not repeat them.
Conclusion
Oak Bay continues to be the best place to live in Greater Victoria because of the long standing by-laws that our past Mayors and Councils have passed and maintained to preserve our low population density. With the exception of the damaging population and housing policy proposed by this plan, there is no evidence that there is any risk of that changing.
It is clear that there is no evidence that there is anything wrong with Oak Bay’s housing to the extent that Oak Bay needs to fundamentally, harmfully, and permanently change its single family residential neighborhoods into multiple family dwelling neighborhoods.
We should not be subjected to fundamental population and housing policy changes that are notoriously harmful. If this plan is passed as it is, it will be more than a shot in Oak Bay’s foot. It will be the end of Oak Bay as we know it and enjoy it today.
Oak Bay is the best place to live in Greater Victoria because of the insight and foresight of previous Mayors and councils that have prevented the infilling and densification of Oak Bay’s residential neighborhoods. Those policies and efforts have made Oak Bay as good as it is today. They must be continued.
Bruce Filan
Official Community Plan Survey results
Bruce Filan
District of Oak Bay
September 9, 2014
I am strongly opposed to the major policy of the Plan as set out in Part 1.6.2,
The intent of that policy is to encourage population growth in Oak Bay and to do that by infilling our residential neighborhoods. There is no evidence that the population of Oak Bay is expected to increase substantially in the foreseeable future. There is no any evidence that our district needs to promote an increase in its population. There is no compelling evidence that our district needs to infill our residential neighborhoods with suites and laneway houses.
In short there is no need to either increase our population or to convert our single family dwelling residential neighborhoods into multiple family dwelling neighborhoods
Regional Growth Strategy
Section 866 of the Local Government Act says that the plan must be consistent with the Capital Regional District’s regional growth strategy. The growth strategy is to keep urban settlement compact, in other words, to minimize urban sprawl. The Plan’s response to the strategy is: “Oak Bay is already compact. The Plan plans for it to become more compact with an increase of up to 1800 people in the next 10 years. Infill is the primary tool for increasing density. “
The meaning of the word “compact” is “to occupy a small volume by reason of efficient use of space”. Oak Bay is very small. Its area is only 10.5 square kilometers. The boundaries of Oak Bay are fixed. It can never grow in size. All of Oak Bay is fully developed. It does not have any unsettled areas. Urban settlement in Oak Bay cannot sprawl either inside its borders or outside its borders.
As the OCP acknowledges, Oak Bay’s urban settlement is already compact. Nothing more had to be said in the OCP in response to the regional growth strategy. Densification of our District will not make it more compact. It will just make it more dense.
The Plan must only address the demonstrated housing needs of District residents
Section 877 of the Act says that the Plan must include a statement about residential development required to meet anticipated housing needs over at least the next 5 years. This plan is supposed to be for the benefit of our District and the residents of our District. First and foremost this Plan must meet the anticipated residential needs of our District’s residents, not the wishes of people who don’t live here.
Part 2.3 of the plan says that a concern in Oak Bay is that a lack of housing options is limiting the ability of many people to live or remain living in Oak Bay. The plan is supposed to address needs, not unsubstantiated concerns. There is no evidence in this plan or anywhere else that Oak Bay residents are crying out for more housing. There is no way that unsubstantiated or even anecdotal concerns should turn our district upside down by converting our single family dwelling neighborhoods into multiple family dwelling neighborhoods
Housing and accommodation in Oak Bay is not broken. Our present zoning bylaws limiting the use of our single family dwelling residential neighborhoods are not creating any housing problems or hardships. The population of Oak Bay in 1981 was 17,800 people. The population of Oak Bay today is just over 18,000.
So in the last 30 years or more the population of Oak Bay has increased by only about 200 people. That’s an average increase in our population over the last 30 years of about 7 people per year. Expressed as a percentage, that is an average increase of about .04 per cent per year.An average increase of 7 people per year over the last 30 years is no reason to convert our single family dwelling neighborhoods into multiple family dwelling neighborhoods..
Part 2.5 of the new Community Plan says “The plan is for ‘Oak Bay’ to become more compact with an increase of up to 1,800 people over the next 10 years.” That’s an average increase in population of 180 people per year. That’s a total increase in the population over the next 10 years of 10 per cent.
The population increase that the Plan wants to promote over the next 10 years is over 25 times more than what the increase has been over the past 30 years.
We should not be promoting an increase in the population in Oak Bay. All that will do will create a demand for more housing. Oak Bay is safe, quiet, stable, and lightly populated.
It has all of the amenities that a person needs. It is one of a very few urban areas in Canada where people can escape the deep freeze of winter. Those qualities make it one of the most sought after places to live in all of Canada. Canada’s increasing population appears to be never ending. We will continue to see a rising flood of newcomers to this area who want to live in our district.
Not surprisingly Part 2.3 of the proposed Plan says that the stability of our resident population “makes it difficult for those who may want to relocate into Oak Bay”. It is patently obvious that the Plan’s policy to increase the population of Oak Bay is intended to cater to the desires of non-Oak Bay residents who want to live in our district.. We have no obligation to accommodate non-residents of Oak Bay who want to move here.
Until there is clear and solid evidence that Oak Bay needs an increase in our population and do that by infilling our residential neighborhoods, this district should not be promoting doing something which will be detrimental to the lives of our established residents.
Oak Bay’s core feature and what we must protect
Our population has remained virtually static over the past 30 years. There is nothing to suggest that there is any risk of that changing. There is no doubt that the high standard of living and quality of life that we enjoy in our District is second to none. The population density of our neighborhoods is low. Streets are not busy and congested with traffic. Our neighborhoods are not choked with parked cars lining the sides of our streets.
Our neighborhoods are quiet and safe. Our residents can still drive easily through Oak Bay. They can still conveniently park on streets in front of their homes. Our residential neighborhoods are as good as they can be in an urban area. At the very core of what defines Oak Bay’s unique residential character is that Oak Bay’s residential neighborhoods are made up of single-family dwellings.
While other municipalities have allowed the infilling and densification of their residential neighborhoods, Oak Bay has not. Oak Bay’s single-family dwelling neighborhoods are what make it better than any other area in the greater Victoria.
That is why people want to live in Oak Bay. Our single family dwelling neighborhoods are what we must protect and preserve if we want to keep the best of what we have in Oak Bay. Densification will reduce the quality of life in Oak Bay neighborhoods. It will spoil our safe, quiet, uncluttered, and uncrowded neighborhoods. The damage that infilling and densification has done to other communities has shown us that infilling and densification will be bad for our district as well
A comparison of Oak Bay and Fairfield, and a bad vision of what could come
I have lived in Greater Victoria for over 40 years. The first 12 years I lived in South Fairfield. For the last 29 years I have lived in Oak Bay. During the first two years that I was here I was a teacher at Monterey Elementary School. I am more than just familiar with both Fairfield and Oak Bay. I have seen the evolution of those areas over the last 40 years. When I first came to Victoria, both areas were virtually indistinguishable from one another.
The population density in both areas was low. Vehicle traffic on the streets was minimal. Street parking was always available and convenient.
Oak Bay has continued to prevent the densification of its residential neighborhoods. Victoria has not. In the past couple of decades south Fairfield has become very different from south Oak Bay. Many residential streets in south Fairfield are now choked with traffic and on street parking. On many streets in south Fairfield, parking is always at a premium, usually inconvenient, and at times simply impossible to find.
On McKenzie Street for example which runs between Moss Street and Cook Street, parking congestion on both sides of the street became so bad that traffic could not travel in both directions at the same time. Parking is now allowed only on one side of the street, further reducing on street parking availability. Some residents have resorted to putting driveways and parking areas in their front yards in order to park their vehicles near their homes.
If Oak Bay allows the densification of its single family neighborhoods they will become just like south Fairfield. I don’t want to find myself living on a street like that, and I don’t think any of you do either.
More people and the infilling of our residential neighborhoods will mean more motor vehicles, more air pollution, more traffic congestion, more on street parking congestion, more paving of green spaces for parking like the area that was just finished this summer between the rec- center and the municipal yard, more noise , more annoying sounds of barking dogs and dog owners who yell at them, more car alarms, more police sirens in the middle of the night, more buildings on residential lots, more overshadowing of neighboring properties, more demands upon our infrastructure, more repairs to the infrastructure, more municipal employees, more municipal costs, more bylaws, more annoying and damaging bylaw infractions.
The list of problems can go on and on. Those problems all add up to create more unhappiness, more animosity, and more conflict among residents. We must learn from the mistakes that other municipalities have made by infilling their residential neighborhoods. We can’t ignore them, and we must not repeat them.
Conclusion
Oak Bay continues to be the best place to live in Greater Victoria because of the long standing by-laws that our past Mayors and Councils have passed and maintained to preserve our low population density. With the exception of the damaging population and housing policy proposed by this plan, there is no evidence that there is any risk of that changing.
It is clear that there is no evidence that there is anything wrong with Oak Bay’s housing to the extent that Oak Bay needs to fundamentally, harmfully, and permanently change its single family residential neighborhoods into multiple family dwelling neighborhoods.
We should not be subjected to fundamental population and housing policy changes that are notoriously harmful. If this plan is passed as it is, it will be more than a shot in Oak Bay’s foot. It will be the end of Oak Bay as we know it and enjoy it today.
Oak Bay is the best place to live in Greater Victoria because of the insight and foresight of previous Mayors and councils that have prevented the infilling and densification of Oak Bay’s residential neighborhoods. Those policies and efforts have made Oak Bay as good as it is today. They must be continued.
Bruce Filan
Official Community Plan Survey results
- Council should not rely on the survey results as a basis for planning to make major changes to our single family dwelling neighborhoods.
- The survey was flawed in two significant ways.
- The survey asked for opinions on suites and laneway house.
- The survey told each respondent to make an assumption that major concerns such as traffic, parking, and neighborhood character would be “addressed” if those changes were allowed.
- The survey acknowledged that infilling has created traffic, and parking problems and that it can damage the character of a neighborhood.
- It suggested to respondents that they should assume that council would ensure that traffic and parking problems would be prevented and that neighborhood character would not be affected.
- However it would be impossible for council to guarantee that all of the problems that infilling will cause would be prevented by Council.
- In a perfect world the key problems associated with infilling might be eliminated. Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world.
- Even if bylaws are passed to address infilling problems, those bylaws will be violated.
- It would be naive to think that bylaws passed to control suites and laneway homes and their associated problems would be faithfully followed by everyone.
- Oak Bay has only limited resources to deal with planning and bylaw enforcement. Regardless of the efforts that may be made by council to address problems associated with infilling, those problems will never go away.
- In addition bylaws that are aimed at preventing bylaw infractions lack teeth because the bylaws do not receive dedicated enforcement, are complaint driven, and in the case of infractions that are committed over a shorter period of time, often go unenforced unless there is a bylaw or police officer present at the time and place of the infraction.
- People will continue to push the boundaries knowing the chances of
- The questionnaire should not have asked for a qualified response based on an assumption that council can never deliver.
- It should simply have asked respondents thought about suites and laneway houses without asking respondents to assume anything.
- If anything, the survey should have asked people to assume what happens in reality, namely that the addition of suites and laneway houses to a single family dwelling neighborhood will add to traffic congestion and parking problems and can’t help but change the character of a neighborhood
- The second major problem is that the survey failed to address how single family homeowners in single family residential neighborhoods, as a group by itself, felt about suites and laneway houses.
- The survey received responses from single family homeowners,… as well as owners and renters of duplexes, apartments, and strata properties, and some renters of single family homes.
- The people who will be most affected by the infilling of residential neighborhoods are the owners of single family homes.
- The survey should have determined how single family homeowners, as a separate group felt about suites and laneway houses being allowed in their neighborhoods
- Unfortunately the survey did not do that
- These two fundamental failures with the survey leave considerable doubt about what the residents of Oak Bay generally, and single family homeowners in particular, think about suites and laneway houses.
- The survey results should not be relied upon as a basis for converting our single family dwelling residential neighborhoods into multiple family dwelling neighborhoods.
Bruce Filan