Council Report - Committee of the Whole - December 10, 2018
How many Councils does it take to turn on a light bulb & and fix
the broken Subdivision Processes & Zoning Bylaw?
Subject: Agenda Item # 3 - York Place and Prospect Place Heritage Revitalization Agreement - 4 lot subdivision.
What should have been crystal clear to Council regarding this agenda item and to the many residents who packed the Municipal Hall and the hallway (many having to stand for well over four hours to express their viewpoints) was that the present processes for Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA) Applications and for Bare Land Strata Subdivisions are dysfunctional. Hopefully, Council will have recognized this and will take corrective action - otherwise, if the same process is used, the Community could be in for another marathon session.
The York Place/Prospect Place Development proposal is just one example of how the District is handling development and change. A few more are:
The Bowker/Cadboro Bay Condo Development, the Brighton/ Foul Bay HRA, the Estevan Duplex, the Quest, the First United Church proposal, and King George Terrace, Fair Street Bare Land Strata and the Runnymede HRA Subdivisions. Although some of these are different types of multi-residential developments they all have one thing in common; the many complaints from residents and some Councillors, mainly about the development process, and the late-stage opportunity for adequate Community input.
It has also been pointed out many times that the Community has been short-changed in the negotiation process. However, on the plus side, it has been a very long time since a majority of Council has been critical of the few Community benefits that a development is providing. On this HRA Development, Council members and the Heritage Commission both expressed their unhappiness with the Planning Department’s negotiation results and the information provided. They also raised many questions about the Planning Department’s process (for Heritage Commission November 13, 2018 recommendation to Council See Appendix #1).
This state of affairs (the lack of transparency, policy and guidelines) and the current uncorrected Zoning Bylaw were all inherited from previous Councils dating back to 2007. This situation has become much worse in the past two Council terms with the advent of the large increase in the number of demolitions, excessive lot coverage and the new proliferation of proposals for disruptive Heritage Revitalization Agreements and Bare Land Strata subdivisions. Judging from the October election and survey results, the prospect of remedying this problem played a large part in the significant Council change.
The important underlying issue: The lack of Council direction to staff on the York Place/Prospect Place development was identified as a problem and it is a systemic one. The absence of policy and guideline direction for the Planning Department has been identified as a Community concern for some time now regarding many developments. However to date and more often than not, when Council has requested that the Planning Department develop initiatives with policy, guidelines, checklists, and manuals, often a consultant was hired and delay after delay occurred. It is up to Staff to manage the District and Council’s role is to direct Staff.
In the past seven years the District has spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on consultants; at the same time significantly expanding the Planning Department. Not long age Oak Bay had one senior planning staff member: now there is a Director of Building and Planning, a Manager of Planning, a Planning Technician and apparently, a Building and Planning Clerk has been added. This has imposed a substantial tax burden on the Community. What is most puzzling is that staff have been hired presumably for thier qualifications, expertise, and experience: why can’t they accomplish what they are contracting consultants to do?
For example, almost all of the CRD and Lower Mainland Municipalities have development cost charges, amenity and reserve fund policies; secondary suite legislation including unsolved problem and impact information and Approving Officer subdivision policies and guidelines. As well, many have Heritage Revitalization and Heritage Conservation Area Policies and Guidelines. Most of these referenced regulations are generic and easily adaptable and have been in place for years, some decades. Why not just copy and modify these already working models?
(Read On For more information)
Oak Bay Watch’s Perspective
“The best result for tomorrow is to take the right action today”
At the December 10, 2018 Committee of the Whole Meeting, the Planning Department approach was: pass the York Place/ Prospect Place 4- lot subdivision as recommended, and as quickly as possible with incomplete information - before the neighbourhood has the imminent protective Heritage Conservation development guidelines in place. Then trust us to get it right.
The Planning Department has been part of the Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) working group and the consultation and discussion process from the very beginning. It is not clear when the York Place/ Prospect Place Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA) application was made: however we understand sometime between the spring and mid-year of 2018. If this is correct the apparent rush to get the HRA Development approved without all of the necessary information is both surprising and suspect.
It was also disturbing and apparent to most residents and some Council members at the meeting that the District staff’s negotiations had resulted in giving away so much, and was offering so very little for the Community in return. Developments that add so much density result in large profits for the developer, while in Oak Bay, residents pick up the bulk of the processing expenses and impact costs. It is recognized that there have been escalating development costs, profits have not only kept pace, but they have significantly exceeded them.
Some Oak Bay Examples:
The point is that these large profit margins provide very good bargaining power for our negotiators: why is District staff getting so little to offset our excessive tax increases?
Oak Bay Watch researchers have identified an excellent Heritage Revitalization Agreement guide and policy documents from New Westminster. These documents provide a comprehensive process format and requirements for HRA developments, while still recognizing that each one is different. They could be adapted to all Oak Bay subdivisions and a costly consultant would not be required. We will be providing these documents to Council Members with the hope of adoption ASAP. View these documents at:
https://www.newwestcity.ca/heritage/heritage-and-development/articles/4971.php
(click on HRA Guide and policy documents near bottom of webpage)
A take away from the COW meeting discussion is that the modified heritage wall being offered and the heritage carriage house ( in very poor condition) are not adequate compensation for a promising-to-be very profitable 4-lot subdivision that has the potential to destroy the topography and natural environment.
Our main concern lies with Council‘s motion on the York Place/Prospect Place HRA to renegotiate the Planning Department's current recommended arrangement. As indicated, the Planning Department’s negotiation record to date on this and other projects could have been much more in line with the interests of the Community. Now the same Planning Department has been requested to get a better deal. Our suggestion would be that staff collaborate with neighbours first, then understand what is acceptable for the neighbourhood before moving forward. Planning staff consulted with neighbours a number of times during the Clive development process - before the approval stage. New Westminster's Heritage public engagement process requires: consultation with the Heritage Commission, relevant Neighbourhood Associations, the Advisory Planning Commission, the Design Panel and immediate neighbours.
The developer has indicated that he wants to live in the new, already-approved large house and be a good neighbour, and that he also wants to build houses for his children on some of the newly created lots. We anticipate that he would not be looked on kindly by his neighbours and the Community if he were to destroy the heritage wall and carriage house. Also, he would most likely reduce his property value by removing the heritage wall as this would negatively impact the streetscape. It would break up the continuity of the wall that runs along multiple properties of York Place and Prospect Place.
The “Heritage” Carriage House, reported to be headed for Windsor Park, also requires another long look. A Parks and Recreation (written) report is required that outlines who is responsible for costs to restore it and bring it up to the building code? Precisely where in the heritage rose garden is it to go? How much green space and how many trees will be lost? Are there any other uses proposed besides a very large heritage storage shed for rugby gear? Will any servicing be required e.g. plumbing, sewer, electrical? What will a foundation cost and who will finance this? Will access be allowed from the rose garden? Will it be a good fit aesthetically? What would the new neighbours think of the proposal and will they have any say on the use? At the moment there are surely many more questions than answers. This is yet another example of incomplete information and leaving local residents and community out of the planning process.
At the December 10, 2018 COW Meeting it was very apparent how inappropriate it was to schedule back-to-back COW/Council input and approval meetings on the same night. It should have been anticipated from the number of communications and the declared community interest – that a large resident turnout was inevitable. What was also needed was time between these Council meetings to analyze the results and all the agenda reports and information – again a standard practice elsewhere and a past Oak Bay procedure. The lack of community collaboration at such a late stage also pointed out the void in the 4-lot subdivision process (bylaws and public meetings were at the ready for approval at the back-to-back Council meeting).
A section of the HRA subdivision has already received Planning Department building permit approval however there has not been a sneak preview provided of the expected to be built exceptional, very large house with a six-car underground parking garage. This would have provided some idea of the "fit". A "fit' is one of the tenets of the upcoming Heritage Conservation Area - and which so much energy and expense have been used to develop the terms and conditions. As for the rest of the HRA 3-lot subdivision, we are told the design and many other details are to follow.
The dimensions of the approved primary house apparently are based on 45% of the existing lot. It seems that the Planning Department had suggested to the applicant that they apply for an HRA for the additional three lots to be built on the remaining portion. Council and residents expressed their concerns about the amount of excessive blasting and rock removal that will be required. As indicated this would almost certainly change the topography and heritage character of the site and not comply with the official Community Plan’s heritage objectives.
And all this in the middle of a soon-to-be Heritage Conservation Area (HCA). One has to wonder why the Planning Department, involved in the HCA planning process from the beginning, wouldn’t have waited for the protective terms and conditions of the Heritage Conservation Area – scheduled for approval early in the new year.
Appendix #1
As per the Heritage Commission Established Bylaw, the heritage Commission has a mandate to advise Council on any matter related to heritage significance of any building, structure of landscape feature within the Municipality.
The Heritage Commission provided a motion for Heritage Revitalization application HRA00008 recommending:
1. that Council decline this proposed 1561 York Place heritage revitalization agreement application; and
2. the Municipality negotiate with the proponent to mitigate the impact of this special location by requiring:
a) access to any approved subdivision through the existing opening in the York Place granite wall;
b) retention and rehabilitation of the rubble stone wall intact;
c) retention of the rural aspect of Prospect Place;
d) any new permit for buildings and new lots to follow the heritage conservation area guidelines; and
e) minimum blasting of the natural landscapes of the property.
How many Councils does it take to turn on a light bulb & and fix
the broken Subdivision Processes & Zoning Bylaw?
Subject: Agenda Item # 3 - York Place and Prospect Place Heritage Revitalization Agreement - 4 lot subdivision.
What should have been crystal clear to Council regarding this agenda item and to the many residents who packed the Municipal Hall and the hallway (many having to stand for well over four hours to express their viewpoints) was that the present processes for Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA) Applications and for Bare Land Strata Subdivisions are dysfunctional. Hopefully, Council will have recognized this and will take corrective action - otherwise, if the same process is used, the Community could be in for another marathon session.
The York Place/Prospect Place Development proposal is just one example of how the District is handling development and change. A few more are:
The Bowker/Cadboro Bay Condo Development, the Brighton/ Foul Bay HRA, the Estevan Duplex, the Quest, the First United Church proposal, and King George Terrace, Fair Street Bare Land Strata and the Runnymede HRA Subdivisions. Although some of these are different types of multi-residential developments they all have one thing in common; the many complaints from residents and some Councillors, mainly about the development process, and the late-stage opportunity for adequate Community input.
It has also been pointed out many times that the Community has been short-changed in the negotiation process. However, on the plus side, it has been a very long time since a majority of Council has been critical of the few Community benefits that a development is providing. On this HRA Development, Council members and the Heritage Commission both expressed their unhappiness with the Planning Department’s negotiation results and the information provided. They also raised many questions about the Planning Department’s process (for Heritage Commission November 13, 2018 recommendation to Council See Appendix #1).
This state of affairs (the lack of transparency, policy and guidelines) and the current uncorrected Zoning Bylaw were all inherited from previous Councils dating back to 2007. This situation has become much worse in the past two Council terms with the advent of the large increase in the number of demolitions, excessive lot coverage and the new proliferation of proposals for disruptive Heritage Revitalization Agreements and Bare Land Strata subdivisions. Judging from the October election and survey results, the prospect of remedying this problem played a large part in the significant Council change.
The important underlying issue: The lack of Council direction to staff on the York Place/Prospect Place development was identified as a problem and it is a systemic one. The absence of policy and guideline direction for the Planning Department has been identified as a Community concern for some time now regarding many developments. However to date and more often than not, when Council has requested that the Planning Department develop initiatives with policy, guidelines, checklists, and manuals, often a consultant was hired and delay after delay occurred. It is up to Staff to manage the District and Council’s role is to direct Staff.
In the past seven years the District has spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on consultants; at the same time significantly expanding the Planning Department. Not long age Oak Bay had one senior planning staff member: now there is a Director of Building and Planning, a Manager of Planning, a Planning Technician and apparently, a Building and Planning Clerk has been added. This has imposed a substantial tax burden on the Community. What is most puzzling is that staff have been hired presumably for thier qualifications, expertise, and experience: why can’t they accomplish what they are contracting consultants to do?
For example, almost all of the CRD and Lower Mainland Municipalities have development cost charges, amenity and reserve fund policies; secondary suite legislation including unsolved problem and impact information and Approving Officer subdivision policies and guidelines. As well, many have Heritage Revitalization and Heritage Conservation Area Policies and Guidelines. Most of these referenced regulations are generic and easily adaptable and have been in place for years, some decades. Why not just copy and modify these already working models?
(Read On For more information)
Oak Bay Watch’s Perspective
“The best result for tomorrow is to take the right action today”
At the December 10, 2018 Committee of the Whole Meeting, the Planning Department approach was: pass the York Place/ Prospect Place 4- lot subdivision as recommended, and as quickly as possible with incomplete information - before the neighbourhood has the imminent protective Heritage Conservation development guidelines in place. Then trust us to get it right.
The Planning Department has been part of the Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) working group and the consultation and discussion process from the very beginning. It is not clear when the York Place/ Prospect Place Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA) application was made: however we understand sometime between the spring and mid-year of 2018. If this is correct the apparent rush to get the HRA Development approved without all of the necessary information is both surprising and suspect.
It was also disturbing and apparent to most residents and some Council members at the meeting that the District staff’s negotiations had resulted in giving away so much, and was offering so very little for the Community in return. Developments that add so much density result in large profits for the developer, while in Oak Bay, residents pick up the bulk of the processing expenses and impact costs. It is recognized that there have been escalating development costs, profits have not only kept pace, but they have significantly exceeded them.
Some Oak Bay Examples:
- King George Terrace: Bare Land Strata, 4-lot Development – Price tag per home $6,000,000, total $24,000,000
- Bowker /Cadboro Bay: 45 Condominiums - Units starting at almost $600, 000.
- 2280 Estevan/ at Cadboro Bay Road: A single-family lot purchased for $450,000 and spot zoned for a duplex in 2015 and built in 2018. One half is currently on the market for $1,595,000.
The point is that these large profit margins provide very good bargaining power for our negotiators: why is District staff getting so little to offset our excessive tax increases?
Oak Bay Watch researchers have identified an excellent Heritage Revitalization Agreement guide and policy documents from New Westminster. These documents provide a comprehensive process format and requirements for HRA developments, while still recognizing that each one is different. They could be adapted to all Oak Bay subdivisions and a costly consultant would not be required. We will be providing these documents to Council Members with the hope of adoption ASAP. View these documents at:
https://www.newwestcity.ca/heritage/heritage-and-development/articles/4971.php
(click on HRA Guide and policy documents near bottom of webpage)
A take away from the COW meeting discussion is that the modified heritage wall being offered and the heritage carriage house ( in very poor condition) are not adequate compensation for a promising-to-be very profitable 4-lot subdivision that has the potential to destroy the topography and natural environment.
Our main concern lies with Council‘s motion on the York Place/Prospect Place HRA to renegotiate the Planning Department's current recommended arrangement. As indicated, the Planning Department’s negotiation record to date on this and other projects could have been much more in line with the interests of the Community. Now the same Planning Department has been requested to get a better deal. Our suggestion would be that staff collaborate with neighbours first, then understand what is acceptable for the neighbourhood before moving forward. Planning staff consulted with neighbours a number of times during the Clive development process - before the approval stage. New Westminster's Heritage public engagement process requires: consultation with the Heritage Commission, relevant Neighbourhood Associations, the Advisory Planning Commission, the Design Panel and immediate neighbours.
The developer has indicated that he wants to live in the new, already-approved large house and be a good neighbour, and that he also wants to build houses for his children on some of the newly created lots. We anticipate that he would not be looked on kindly by his neighbours and the Community if he were to destroy the heritage wall and carriage house. Also, he would most likely reduce his property value by removing the heritage wall as this would negatively impact the streetscape. It would break up the continuity of the wall that runs along multiple properties of York Place and Prospect Place.
The “Heritage” Carriage House, reported to be headed for Windsor Park, also requires another long look. A Parks and Recreation (written) report is required that outlines who is responsible for costs to restore it and bring it up to the building code? Precisely where in the heritage rose garden is it to go? How much green space and how many trees will be lost? Are there any other uses proposed besides a very large heritage storage shed for rugby gear? Will any servicing be required e.g. plumbing, sewer, electrical? What will a foundation cost and who will finance this? Will access be allowed from the rose garden? Will it be a good fit aesthetically? What would the new neighbours think of the proposal and will they have any say on the use? At the moment there are surely many more questions than answers. This is yet another example of incomplete information and leaving local residents and community out of the planning process.
At the December 10, 2018 COW Meeting it was very apparent how inappropriate it was to schedule back-to-back COW/Council input and approval meetings on the same night. It should have been anticipated from the number of communications and the declared community interest – that a large resident turnout was inevitable. What was also needed was time between these Council meetings to analyze the results and all the agenda reports and information – again a standard practice elsewhere and a past Oak Bay procedure. The lack of community collaboration at such a late stage also pointed out the void in the 4-lot subdivision process (bylaws and public meetings were at the ready for approval at the back-to-back Council meeting).
A section of the HRA subdivision has already received Planning Department building permit approval however there has not been a sneak preview provided of the expected to be built exceptional, very large house with a six-car underground parking garage. This would have provided some idea of the "fit". A "fit' is one of the tenets of the upcoming Heritage Conservation Area - and which so much energy and expense have been used to develop the terms and conditions. As for the rest of the HRA 3-lot subdivision, we are told the design and many other details are to follow.
The dimensions of the approved primary house apparently are based on 45% of the existing lot. It seems that the Planning Department had suggested to the applicant that they apply for an HRA for the additional three lots to be built on the remaining portion. Council and residents expressed their concerns about the amount of excessive blasting and rock removal that will be required. As indicated this would almost certainly change the topography and heritage character of the site and not comply with the official Community Plan’s heritage objectives.
And all this in the middle of a soon-to-be Heritage Conservation Area (HCA). One has to wonder why the Planning Department, involved in the HCA planning process from the beginning, wouldn’t have waited for the protective terms and conditions of the Heritage Conservation Area – scheduled for approval early in the new year.
Appendix #1
As per the Heritage Commission Established Bylaw, the heritage Commission has a mandate to advise Council on any matter related to heritage significance of any building, structure of landscape feature within the Municipality.
The Heritage Commission provided a motion for Heritage Revitalization application HRA00008 recommending:
1. that Council decline this proposed 1561 York Place heritage revitalization agreement application; and
2. the Municipality negotiate with the proponent to mitigate the impact of this special location by requiring:
a) access to any approved subdivision through the existing opening in the York Place granite wall;
b) retention and rehabilitation of the rubble stone wall intact;
c) retention of the rural aspect of Prospect Place;
d) any new permit for buildings and new lots to follow the heritage conservation area guidelines; and
e) minimum blasting of the natural landscapes of the property.