Maura Jones Subject: RE: Rentals vs Condos at Cadboro/Bowker -----Original Message---- From: Steve Bowker [mailto: Sent: January-14-17 12:02 PM To: Oak Bay Council <obcouncil@oakbay.ca> Cc: michelle@michellekirby.ca; taraney@shaw.ca; hazel@hazelbraithwaite.ca; kevin@kevinmurdoch.ca; eric@ericzhelka.ca Subject: Rentals vs Condos at Cadboro/Bowker Dear Mayor in Council, District of Oak Bay, January 14, 2017 RE: Rentals vs Condos at Cadboro/Bowker (Submission for the January 16th Council Meeting) In a submission I made to you on September 6, 2016, I explained the Province's provisions in the Strata Property Act which give local councils the strongest hand when bargaining with condo developers where a development is replacing properties which have been used as rentals within 18 months. The proposed project at Cadboro / Bowker is such a development, so please re-read that submission (and it's appendix) prior to making any decisions, or beginning any bargaining process with the developer. The key points of that submission were that: Since 1980 BC has suffered a net loss of rental apartment buildings due to their replacement (or conversion) by condos. Developers are loath to build new rental apartment buildings due to the far greater profits and the easier financing of condo projects. This situation has been identified by the GVRD as the primary factor behind the current rental crisis (affordable housing crisis)., Council's power is legislated in the Strata Property Act in section "242 -Approval for conversion of previously occupied buildings" Section 242 include laws such as: - The approving authority must be the council (but by resolution can be delegated for specific types of buildings). -The project must fully comply with municipal bylaws (NO significant variances!!). - Consideration must be given to the priority of rentals in the area (rentals are a high priority throughout Oak Bay otherwise council wouldn't be proposing to allow detached secondary suites). - There is no appeal if council refuses such a strata plan (so the onus rests with the developer to come to terms ahead of time with the desires of council, the neighbours, and the community) In Oak Bay there is a critical shortage of modern, 'to-code' rental suites with elevator access - at a time when many ageing residents are at the stage of their health were it is logical for them to transition from owning their home to renting one. (And thus release their family sized houses for use by young families) Other councils in the CRD are actively using the bargaining powers granted to them by section 242 to increase their supply of modern rentals. Recent examples include the latest condo project in Cook Street Village where a third of the suites are designated rental, and a handful of the rentals are to be rented out at less than market price. In the two largest and latest condo projects in the Helmcken area of View Royal, in both projects all of the suites were designated rental. At a time when council and city managers are pushing for infill and more (and affordable) housing choices, it would be an abrogation of council's responsibility to the community, and to their own goals, if they do not bargain hard for a large rental component in the Cadboro/Bowker project. 1
Yours truly, Stephen Bowker 2125 Quimper Street, Oak Bay, 2
Maura Jones From: Subject: Oak Bay Council FW: Condos replacing rentals -----Original Message---- From: Steve Bowker [mailto: Sent: September-06-16 10:19 PM To: Oak Bay Council <obcouncil@oakbay.ca> Cc: Roy Thomassen <rthomassen@oakbay.ca> Subject: Condos replacing rentals Dear Mayor in Council, District of Oak Bay, September 6, 2016 RE: Condos replacing rentals This fall you will be asked to approve various strata plans that will replace (or convert) buildings that have been used as rentals in the prior 18 months, with strata title projects (condos). This letter is a timely reminder that since 1980 BC has suffered a net loss of rental apartment buildings due to their replacement (or conversion) by condos. It is a rare event that developers build new rental apartment buildings due to the far greater profits and the easier financing of condo projects. This situation has been identified by the GVRD as the primary factor behind the current rental crisis. (For more information and references see the appendix below). After much pressure from local governments, the provincial government enacted laws that give councils "life and death" powers over such rental replacement condo projects. These powers are not legislated by the Community Charter Act or by the Local Government Act, but by the Strata Property Act in section "242 - Approval for conversion of previously occupied buildings" (see appendix). This section sets down the rules for approval or refusal of such strata plans. It is simply worded, easy to understand, and contains a lot of "Musts". For instance: - The approving authority must be the council (but by resolution can be delegated for specific types of buildings). - The project must fully comply with municipal bylaws (no significant variances). - Consideration must be given to the priority of rentals in the area (rentals are a high priority throughout Oak Bay otherwise council wouldn't be proposing to allow detached secondary suites). - There is no appeal if council refuses such a strata plan (so the onus rests with the developer to come to terms ahead of time with the desires of council, the neighbours, and the community) In other municipalities, councils have wielded this "life and death" power over condo projects to bargain all or part of the project to be rental units (and even affordable rental units). Section 242 is a "must read" for Oak Bay Councillors at this time. Yours truly, Stephen Bowker 2125 Quimper Street, Oak Bay, =================== APPENDIX=================== Links with additional information: Table of Contents of the Strata Property Act: 1
http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/98043_00 Part 14 - Land Titles, Section 242 of the Strata Property Act (text at the end of this appendix): http://www.bclaws.ca/ civix/ docu ment/loc/ com plete/statreg/--%20s%20- /Strata%20Property%20Act%20[SBC%201998]%20c. %2043/00 _Act/98043 _14.xm l#part14 GVRD's 2012 landmark study "Rental Inventory and Risk Analysis" which identifies the detrimental effect of condo profitability on the supply of rental buildings: www.metrovancouver.org/services/regiona1- planning/planningpublications/metrovancouverrental1nventoryandriskanalysis8may20l2.pdf My Rental/Condo letter printed in the Oak Bay News on August 18 2016 (full text follows the link): http://www.oakbaynews.com/opinion/letters/390511801.html Dear Editor RE: Rental housing crisis roots reach back decades Friday's article about the shortage of rental apartments was excellent and timely. This critical problem is BC wide, so it begs a follow-up to explain the causes and solutions. Here are the basics: Prior to the BC Strata Title Act of 1966 (the first in Canada) there were no condo buildings, so the only way to own an apartment or townhouse home was via a co-op or corporation. The innovation of strata titles was to extend the Canadian dream of home ownership to include apartments -- a very good thing -- at least for the first decade -- until unexpected consequences arose. Condo building projects were easier to finance than rentals, and the profits are much higher from selling a building in parts rather than a whole, so by the mid 70's rental construction had CEASED. In the overheated market prior to the great condo crash of '81, condo flippers were even leaving condos empty. By the mid 80's developers were converting/replacing existing rental buildings into condo's. By the late 90's there was such a shortage of rentals that local governments turned a blind eye to the building of thousands of (illegal and not-to-code) secondary/basement suites, and even placed moratoriums on the approval of strata titles for existing rental buildings. Both were temporary band-aid solutions but they continue to this day. In this century BC'ers have learned (the hard way) that even in a home-owning economy, you still need a supply of modern, spacious rentals to allow mobility within the economy. There are times in everyone's life when it is silly to own and better to rent, such as: trial moves to find work, temporary job transfers, newly weds, newly divorced, students, sun-birds, migrants, widowers, and pensioners with failing health. Unfortunately for BC'ers, since 1980 there has been a net loss of rental buildings and many of the remaining rental buildings are tired three story walk-ups built in the SO's & 60's. Condo's were a good innovation but the consequence of their profitability has been the un-balancing of the entire housing market. For instance, because ageing pensioners have no suitable modern rentals to move into, they remain in their family sized houses, thus those houses are not available for raising young families. The GVRD published a risk analysis of this very problem in 2012, so all BC politicians and town planners know the solution. Until a new supply of modern rental buildings has re-balanced the housing market they must extend existing moratoriums to suspend ALL new strata titles, and persuade developers to build rental buildings instead. Yours Truly, Stephen Bowker 2
Text quoted from Section 242 of the Strata Property Act: Approval for conversion of previously occupied buildings 242 (1) For the purposes of this section, "approving authority" means (a) the municipal council of the municipality if the land is located in a municipality, (b) the regional board of the regional district if the land is located in a regional district but not in a municipality and is neither Nisga'a Lands nor treaty lands of a treaty first nation, (c) the Nisga'a Village Government if the land is located within Nisga'a Village Lands, (d) the Nisga'a Lisi ms Government if the land is Nisga'a Lands other than Nisga'a Village Lands, or (e) the governing body of the treaty first nation if the land is located within the treaty lands of that treaty first nation. (2) If a person applying to deposit a strata plan wishes to include in the strata plan a previously occupied building, the person must submit the proposed strata plan to the approving authority. (3) The approving authority may (a) approve the strata plan, or approve the strata plan subject to terms and conditions, or (b) refuse to approve the strata plan, or refuse to approve the strata plan until terms and conditions imposed by the approving authority are met. (4) The decision of the approving authority under subsection (3) is final and may not be appealed. (5) The approving authority must not approve the strata plan unless the building substantially complies with the following: (a) the applicable bylaws of the municipality or regional district; (b) applicable Nisga'a Government laws; (b.1) the applicable laws of the treaty first nation; (c) the building regulations within the meaning of the Building Act, except, in relation to a treaty first nation that has entered into an agreement described in section 6 of that Act, to the extent that the agreement enables the treaty first nation to establish standards that are different from those established by the building regulations. (6) In making its decision, the approving authority must consider (a) the priority of rental accommodation over privately owned housing in the area, (b) any proposals for the relocation of persons occupying a residential building, (c) the life expectancy of the building, (d) projected major increases in maintenance costs due to the condition of the building, and (e) any other matters that, in its opinion, are relevant. (7) If the approving authority approves the strata plan without terms and conditions, an authorized signatory of the approving authority must endorse the plan in accordance with the regulations. (8) If the approving authority approves the strata plan subject to terms and conditions, an authorized signatory of the approving authority must endorse the plan in accordance with the regulations once the terms and conditions have been met. (9) The endorsement must be dated not more than 180 days before the date the strata plan is tendered for deposit. (10) The approving authority may, by resolution, with respect to a specified type of previously occupied building, (a) delegate to an approving officer or other person designated in the resolution the exercise of the powers and performance of the duties of the approving authority under this section, and (b) impose limits or conditions on the exercise of the powers and performance of the duties delegated by the resolution. (11) This section does not apply to a strata plan that includes a previously occupied building if the person applying to deposit the strata plan is the government or the Crown in right of Canada. End of APPENDIX 3
Maura Jones Subject: RE: Abstract multi unit project From: Sent: January-16-17 9:29 AM To: Oak Bay Council <obcouncil@oakbay.ca> Subject: Abstract multi unit project I am quite stunned by the OB council considering a proposal requiring so many variances. Without adequate parking the neighboring streets will become parking lots. You are maximizing prophets for the developer which will be paid for by the decrease in quality of life for the neighbors. There is no benefit for anyone but the developer. Joan Archibald 2344 Middowne Road 1
2568 Dufferin Ave. Victoria BC VSR 3L4 January 16, 2017 Dear Mayor and Council Re: Abstract Development, Cadboro Bay Rd at Bowker Avenue I urge Council to reject Abstract Development as I believe, presented. My reason is that it is a very poor site for what is presented. Why? 1. It is on the regular, quickest main route from North Central Oak Bay to Oak Bay Recreation Centre, Oak Bay High and especially downtown Victoria. 2. It sits on hilly terrain which has been a concern of residents nearby in the press re speeding. A family friend -was killed crossing Cadboro Bay Rd. at that point. 3. Parking on the water side seems usually taken. 4. I was told by different parties, including a consultant at the Urban Forest event recently at Oak Bay Recreation that it was unlawful to remove healthy Garry Oaks. The Garry Oaks on the perimeter of the property I read, or several, are to be removed in this proposal. 1. I ask Council to reject this proposal as presented in a Dardanelles-like site. Sincerely, Garth Mayhew