Vandalism (again)

Someone has been at it again.
Sunday night, April 7 2018, someone walked down Victoria Avenue and ripped some of the ‘Stop Overdevelopment’ lawn signs off neighbours’ properties.
They scattered the signs in the road, perhaps hoping that passing cars would damage them. Obviously, they had no concern that the signs might damage passing vehicles.
This is the third incident of this type of property damage in just over twelve months.
Is it just random vandalism? In which case, why aren’t signs from realtors, painters etc ever touched?

Picture from Pexels

Picture from Pexels

If it's not viable, who will be liable?

To Oak Bay Planning Dept., Mayor and Council Copy Acting Chief Administrative Office

13 March 2019

Re: OBUC project ZON00034, DP000022

No Viability, just Liability

The dictionary defines viability, in the commercial sense, as the ability of a business product or service to make a profit.  This is certainly the definition intended when used by this  developer as the principal purpose of their project is to make enough money/profit  to keep the church going for the next hundred years. This amount has never been disclosed.  

The first time ‘viability’ appears is March 2017 when the church’s website describes meeting with BC Housing with ‘a financial model to estimate potential viability and risk to satisfy the church board and shown to BC Housing to secure a project planning loan’.  Our Freedom of information reports had the dollar amount to ensure viability redacted.    Viability (or amount of profit the developer needs to make) initially required a building  of 269 affordable units in a 6-storey L shaped tower, for BC Housing’s application for funding.  OK, said BC Housing.  The District of Oak Bay Planning staff  also were apparently “supportive of this project and the proposed development met the objectives of the local Planning Department” – again from a Freedom of information report obtained by neighbours .

From the beginning the terms ‘viability’ and ‘affordable housing’ went hand-in-hand, but with ever-changing definitions.  By March 2018 the 269 units of affordable housing morphed into 123 units of affordable housing and 14 market units.  By May 2018, there were 50 units of affordable housing and 46 market and long-term lease units.   Between March and May 2018, the name of the development changed from “Affordable Housing Project” to Neighbourhood Housing Initiative – with the word affordable no longer part of the description.

In an October 2018 submission to a Request for Proposals by the  BC Community Housing Fund, the developer applied for a grant based on using revenues from market units to subsidize the affordable units. The developer stated in this submission (available through FOI request 30-11318). “if grant support is not obtained or planning costs rise more units may have to be switched into being market units to safeguard breakeven.”  Also that “certain terms of the RFP conflict with the high cost of development in Oak Bay such that the level of grants and rental stipulations would prevent achieving breakeven”

In conclusion, the developer states “Due to the high cost of building in Oak Bay we unfortunately cannot meet the rental level requirements of the RFP since they would render the project unviable”.

Before proceeding further with the developer’s Rezoning Application, might I suggest that the Planning Department, Councillors and Mayor request confirmation of what the affordable rents for this project will be.  Based on the apparently new information that there is a “high cost of building in Oak Bay” and that “more units may have to be switched into being market units to safeguard breakeven” it seems that this could turn out to be a non-affordable development.

Photo from Pexel - photographer Juhasz Imre

Photo from Pexel - photographer Juhasz Imre

Thank you.  

B. Judson

Just the facts please

Tonight’s email to BC Housing and the District of Oak Bay:

Recently the CCN received documents from BC Housing as the result of an FOI request. These included Oak Bay United Church – Development Team’s recent submission to Housing BC: Community Housing Fund requesting grant funds (RFP 1070-1819/016 Submission), and other correspondence.

These documents stated unequivocally that the OBUC project have support from a Member of the Legislative Assembly.

From FOI 30-11318:

The project is […] supported by our MLA, (page 11)

MLA Andrew Weaver has indicated support (page 25)

MLA Andrew Weaver supports the proposal (page 89)

When a member of the CCN asked Dr. Weaver about these assertions, he responded:

I am surprised that documentation would be submitted saying I was for any specific project in my riding. I am supportive of the general notion of building more affordable housing. It is inappropriate for me to single out a particular project to support or not support”

The need for affordable housing is not in question. The CCN is challenging the height, size and density of this design in our single-family neighbourhood. The lack of adequate parking and significantly increased traffic would have a major negative impact on our narrow neighbourhood streets.

Did the OBUC-DT hope to distract from these issues by falsely claiming an endorsement from a higher power? 

When significant misrepresentations have been made in parts of submissions, doesn’t it cast doubt over the integrity of the rest of the OBUC-DT’s statements?

M. Bolitho
Oak Bay

Book cover from www.writersresist.com - click on the image for more details about this book.

Book cover from www.writersresist.com - click on the image for more details about this book.

Questionable conclusions

February 12, 2019

To: Mayor and Council, Bruce Anderson, Director of Building and Planning—District of Oak Bay

I am very concerned about the conclusions of the Traffic Study and the Parking Study on the OBUC web site:

OBUC Parking Study: "Based on the analysis of each proposed land use, engineers recommend 112-115 parking stalls to accommodate residents (plus visitors), church and public use. OBUC designs include 115 stalls, meeting the upper range of the recommended number."

OBUC Traffic Study: "The study finds that the project area’s main traffic impacts are the result of vehicles bypassing Oak Bay Ave. The OBUC project is not expected to be a factor in adding traffic to the area due to low vehicle ratios for affordable housing, space for bicycles and proximity of public transportation."

How can a development of 96 units, with I'm guessing at least 150 people, likely more, have no impact on local traffic? The Traffic Study by Watt Consulting Group (May 2018) makes the assumption that "Trip generation rates for affordable housing are generally lower than market rental. Studies have demonstrated that vehicle trips per household increase as income increases."

As it is uncertain how many individuals are being considered low income and how many of higher income, concluding how many trips may be generated is sheer speculation. I live on Mitchell Street and my daily observations since the recent parking restriction on Granite Street are that there has been a noticeable impact on traffic. So, combine this with the potential added traffic from the residents in the proposed development, there will be considerable impact on the use of surrounding roads as well as on street parking. The study's conclusion that there will be little impact on traffic is ludicrous.

Closer examination of The Parking Study by Watt Consulting Group submitted in May 2018, provides details of this proposal. It is based on providing 47 parking stalls for 96 units; 10 stalls for Visitor parking, as well as 15 stalls for Church programming, and 35 stalls to be leased for Municipal use.

However, Oak Bay By-Law 3540 determines the minimum parking supply for Multi-family developments @1.5 per unit. Following that, for 96 units the current requirement would be for 154 parking stalls. The Church parking lot currently has 53 spaces, while Church programming use within P-2 Zone requires 117 parking spaces. Allowing the Church to continue to have only 53 spaces as currently provided in their parking lot, the total number would be 217 parking stalls.  Even requiring only 1 parking stall per unit, the total required would be 159!

The proposed 115 parking stalls allows only 47 stalls for 96 units. This recommendation is based on observations by the consultants at other 'representative Multifamily sites with countable/visible parking spaces', ie buildings with only surface parking. These observations were made on two night time occasions in February 2018 (p9), presumably when all the residents were at home. This is an extremely limited strategy to measure the parking needs of potential residents in the proposed OBUC development.

It concludes that "should there be 'overspill' it could be accommodated on Mitchell St and Brighton St which have no parking restrictions". At a minimum there would be an overspill of 44 cars!  Both streets are now contending with the increased volume of traffic and parking due to the recent 2Hr 9-5 Restriction on Granite Street between Foul Bay Road and Mitchell Street. This is certainly not acceptable as a solution to the under provision of parking for this development.

Providing more parking in the proposed two level underground parking area would require deeper blasting. The Geotechnical Report provided by Ryzuk Geotechnical states that "drilling and blasting will require underpinning and/or shoring" of the Church and adjacent structures for the 7 metre maximum. The Report is based on two levels and a new Report would have to be done for going deeper. This report also indicates that vibrations could cause damage to homes close by.

Add to this the Thrift Shop hours on Friday and Saturday to both parking and traffic. I note that the Traffic Study states that the Thrift Shop will continue to operate at the proposed site, while the near residents were told that it would move off site!

My daily observation and experience seem to me to be more real and valid than the methods used by the consultants. The consultants' conclusions are certainly questionable and I hope Mayor, Councillors and staff will take a close of these studies.

The future of Oak Bay’s now quiet streets?

The future of Oak Bay’s now quiet streets?

Janet Poth
Oak Bay