Council Report: February 26, 2018 Secondary Suite Resolution
Something is Seriously "Amiss"
STAGE l
Oak Bay Watch and most of the residents that attend Council and Committee Meetings are concerned. Never was this concern more apparent than at the Monday, February 26, 2018 Council Meeting. Topics ranged from Councillor Ney’s resolution o “Implant Secondary Suites” in Oak Bay, to a troubling Mayor’s Task Force Reportand a home demolished without a permit.
Agenda Item #17: “Resolution: Secondary Suite Implementation in Oak Bay - Proposed by Councillor Ney” . Her Council motion proposes “Implantation of Suites” in all single-family neighbourhoods. This will include not only basement suites, but infill development as well.
Councillor Ney’s resolution, likely to be the most important densification land change in Oak Bay’s history, was not brought to a Committee of the Whole or a Town Hall Meeting that allow full public engagement and collaboration. This is inconsistent with the objective and reasoning for establishing (2012 to the present) a number of Mayor’s Task Forces to improve public engagement. So far success has been an illusion and clearly is, hard to achieve. We are still woefully short of any real improvement.
Aware of this and seemingly anxious for some progress, the Mayor recently established a brand-new Public Engagement Task Force that has just published a “hot off the press” Report. The Report, presented by Councillor Ney, to its credit, “seeks” effective ways to engage the public. Another inconsistency is striking. The Chair of the Task Force is Councillor Ney, the author and presenter of the Secondary Suite Implementation Resolution. Bypassing a Committee of the Whole Meeting she has brought it straight to a Council Meeting that has almost no public engagement.
At the beginning of the February 26, 2018 Council Meeting, the Mayor announced that, as Councillor Croft was absent, the Mayor had decided to defer Councillor Ney’s Resolution until the March 6th, 2018 Council Meeting (more on the accuracy of this date below*). The Mayor explained to the public, who had packed the Council Chambers and the Hallway, that it is customary to have all of Council present to discuss Council motions. Although this has been true on some motions, but not all, the Mayor’s decision to defer the Resolution is questionable on many counts:
The Mayor was aware on Friday February 23rd that Councilor Croft most likely would not be available for the Monday February 26, 2018 Council Meeting and that deferral was a possibility.
With such an important Community densification decision on Council’s agenda, wouldn’t it be reasonable to conclude that the Mayor, being aware of a potential deferral on the Friday before the Monday Council meeting, would have considered that:
The reason the Mayor decided not to announce the deferral much earlier and not to announce it on the Municipal Website is unclear. He may well have had a good reason to delay his decision for so long and not to explain this to the public at Council. However, the end result of his “last minute” deferral announcement was the inconvenience of all the residents who attended the Council Meeting specifically for this agenda item.
The Mayor had to be aware of the way the vote on Councllor Ney’s resolution would go. He would have known that the most plausible reason Councillor Croft’s attendance was necessary was that the latter had made it perfectly clear many times that he, along with Councillors Kirby and obviously Ney and the Mayor, are strongly supportive of legalizing suites.
The Mayor also knew their collective votes would move this Resolution along, and that he would then be in a position, along with his supporting Councillors, to approve a bylaw to legalize suites and infill in Oak Bay. Of interest, it should be noted that neither the Mayor nor the three councillors that support legalizing Secondary Suites and Infill throughout Oak Bay, ran on this platform.
The Mayor also knew that Councillors Murdoch, Braithwaite and Zhelka have strongly indicated that this densification initiative and the allocation of funding are premature at this time. They favour the much more rational and standard planning approach of developing a Housing Strategy first. This would provide the public with all the relevant impact information and expensive enforcement costs.
These Councillors also want to follow the BC Union of Municipalities’ recommendation to introduce and collect Infrastructure funding and Development Cost Charges to cover the inherent development impacts we are currently experiencing and expect to experience (See excerpt Attachment #1). With Council currently enriching developers, but not taxpayers, could not another 4-3 development vote be ensured?
There was no reason Councillor Croft’s attendance was required at this meeting and residents and Council could have had their say. Councillor Ney’s Secondary Suite Implementation Resolution “vote” could easily have been deferred and Councillor Croft, when available to resume his Council Duties, could have watched the meeting‘s webcast and not have missed any part of the discussion or resident input.
He could then have provided his input and cast his vote at the next Council meeting. The Mayor, as an experienced twenty year Council Member and an ex-Capital Regional District Chair, surely would have known all this and been more sensitive to, and considerate of, the public’s time. He might also have had an interest in their input.
So what could be behind:
Isn’t this decision important enough to warrant an adequate public input session and Council discussion at the next Council meeting? After all, Council often spends an hour or so discussing minor variances - like the hours they spent deciding whether to permit a second driveway or the removal of a heat pump?
What also may have been wasted was the effort put in by Community Groups who promoted this Council Meeting on the Secondary Suite Resolution. Interest was also generated by the Friday February 23, 2018 Oak Bay News front-page article and a letter to the Editor. Both of these publicized Councillor Nay’s Secondary Suite Implementation Resolution which was to be discussed at Council on the following Monday.
At Council, during the limited Public Participation Period, only 5 Residents were allowed to speak to this item and then only for 3-minutes. Many more members of the public who wanted to speak were denied time. There is a much more plausible option that would have allowed a public voice on this important community land use densification decision and prevented residents from having to give up another weekday evening. There was an alternate, available and sanctioned option in Procedures Bylaw #4052. Presumably, this procedure was included for important items that, for some reason, bypass public input opportunities (e.g.Council Committee of the Whole and Town Hall Meetings) The Procedures Bylaw states:
Procedures Bylaw #4052: Council Meeting Procedures:
24. Oral submissions from the public may be heard only when Council so
resolves, and shall be restricted solely to items on the circulated agenda
for that meeting.
Many residents, who showed up to speak and hear the Council discussion on Councillor Nay’s Secondary Suites Resolution, left the Meeting immediately after hearing:
Council RPT - Ney Resoltn AmissThe Mayor had indicated the Secondary Suite Implementation Resolution would again be included in the Council meeting agenda. However, at the end of the meeting staff for some reason, waited to point out to the Mayor that there would be no Council Meeting on March 6th, 2018. The Mayor then announced to the remaining residents in attendance that if this were the case, Councillor Ney’s Resolution would again be part of the agenda for the next Council Meeting on March 12, 2018.
Unfortunately, the Mayor who knew he was going to defer this Resolution did not make himself aware of when the next Council meeting would be. If he had, this would have avoided so many residents leaving with misinformation.
Councillor Ney has chosen to ignore the last paragraph of page Page 63 in the OCP Resident Survey Findings regarding “inconclusive results on acceptance of Secondary Suites” as well as the two 2016 District survey results. Instead, as her carefully worded Resolution indicates, she wants Council to decide to implement Secondary Suites in all of Oak Bay.
Any Public consultation then would be limited to how this major land change would be accomplished. If Council members Jenson, Ney, Kirby and Croft follow their usual practice of ignoring resident input when approving most of the extensive development applications, then basement suite and Infill legislation will be inevitable in our Single family neighbouhoods.
_____________________________________________________________________
Please see Correction to our February 24, 2018 Newsletter: The page 43 reference was incorrect regarding, "Results on Resident acceptance of Secondary Suites was inconclusive" in the Official Community Plan Survey on the District Website Municipal Hall/Plans & Reports/Projects & Initiatives, it should have read PAGE 63. Sorry for the inconvenience WE are trying to save Oak Bay.
____________________________________________________________________
Due to the length of this Agenda Item summary, Oak Bay Watch will (very soon) be providing Stage ll of the February 26, 2018 Council Meeting, The Agenda Item topics are:
*******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 newsletter – bottom of Newsletter Menu Item.
Attachment #1
British Columbia Housing Strategy 2018
"Development Cost Charges are designed to provide a means of requiring developers to pay for some of the costs of development".
Something is Seriously "Amiss"
STAGE l
Oak Bay Watch and most of the residents that attend Council and Committee Meetings are concerned. Never was this concern more apparent than at the Monday, February 26, 2018 Council Meeting. Topics ranged from Councillor Ney’s resolution o “Implant Secondary Suites” in Oak Bay, to a troubling Mayor’s Task Force Reportand a home demolished without a permit.
Agenda Item #17: “Resolution: Secondary Suite Implementation in Oak Bay - Proposed by Councillor Ney” . Her Council motion proposes “Implantation of Suites” in all single-family neighbourhoods. This will include not only basement suites, but infill development as well.
Councillor Ney’s resolution, likely to be the most important densification land change in Oak Bay’s history, was not brought to a Committee of the Whole or a Town Hall Meeting that allow full public engagement and collaboration. This is inconsistent with the objective and reasoning for establishing (2012 to the present) a number of Mayor’s Task Forces to improve public engagement. So far success has been an illusion and clearly is, hard to achieve. We are still woefully short of any real improvement.
Aware of this and seemingly anxious for some progress, the Mayor recently established a brand-new Public Engagement Task Force that has just published a “hot off the press” Report. The Report, presented by Councillor Ney, to its credit, “seeks” effective ways to engage the public. Another inconsistency is striking. The Chair of the Task Force is Councillor Ney, the author and presenter of the Secondary Suite Implementation Resolution. Bypassing a Committee of the Whole Meeting she has brought it straight to a Council Meeting that has almost no public engagement.
At the beginning of the February 26, 2018 Council Meeting, the Mayor announced that, as Councillor Croft was absent, the Mayor had decided to defer Councillor Ney’s Resolution until the March 6th, 2018 Council Meeting (more on the accuracy of this date below*). The Mayor explained to the public, who had packed the Council Chambers and the Hallway, that it is customary to have all of Council present to discuss Council motions. Although this has been true on some motions, but not all, the Mayor’s decision to defer the Resolution is questionable on many counts:
The Mayor was aware on Friday February 23rd that Councilor Croft most likely would not be available for the Monday February 26, 2018 Council Meeting and that deferral was a possibility.
With such an important Community densification decision on Council’s agenda, wouldn’t it be reasonable to conclude that the Mayor, being aware of a potential deferral on the Friday before the Monday Council meeting, would have considered that:
- There would be significant public interest in this agenda item and;
- There was a possibility of deferral because there was (an) the expectation of a reason forthcoming that would prevent Councillor Croft from attending.
The reason the Mayor decided not to announce the deferral much earlier and not to announce it on the Municipal Website is unclear. He may well have had a good reason to delay his decision for so long and not to explain this to the public at Council. However, the end result of his “last minute” deferral announcement was the inconvenience of all the residents who attended the Council Meeting specifically for this agenda item.
The Mayor had to be aware of the way the vote on Councllor Ney’s resolution would go. He would have known that the most plausible reason Councillor Croft’s attendance was necessary was that the latter had made it perfectly clear many times that he, along with Councillors Kirby and obviously Ney and the Mayor, are strongly supportive of legalizing suites.
The Mayor also knew their collective votes would move this Resolution along, and that he would then be in a position, along with his supporting Councillors, to approve a bylaw to legalize suites and infill in Oak Bay. Of interest, it should be noted that neither the Mayor nor the three councillors that support legalizing Secondary Suites and Infill throughout Oak Bay, ran on this platform.
The Mayor also knew that Councillors Murdoch, Braithwaite and Zhelka have strongly indicated that this densification initiative and the allocation of funding are premature at this time. They favour the much more rational and standard planning approach of developing a Housing Strategy first. This would provide the public with all the relevant impact information and expensive enforcement costs.
These Councillors also want to follow the BC Union of Municipalities’ recommendation to introduce and collect Infrastructure funding and Development Cost Charges to cover the inherent development impacts we are currently experiencing and expect to experience (See excerpt Attachment #1). With Council currently enriching developers, but not taxpayers, could not another 4-3 development vote be ensured?
There was no reason Councillor Croft’s attendance was required at this meeting and residents and Council could have had their say. Councillor Ney’s Secondary Suite Implementation Resolution “vote” could easily have been deferred and Councillor Croft, when available to resume his Council Duties, could have watched the meeting‘s webcast and not have missed any part of the discussion or resident input.
He could then have provided his input and cast his vote at the next Council meeting. The Mayor, as an experienced twenty year Council Member and an ex-Capital Regional District Chair, surely would have known all this and been more sensitive to, and considerate of, the public’s time. He might also have had an interest in their input.
So what could be behind:
- Postponing Councillor Ney’s Secondary Suite Implementation Resolution?
- Not letting all those who attended speak, and be able to hear all the public input and Council discussion?
- The Mayor’s problem with having two Council input sessions? A second would allow those residents who couldn’t (like Councillor Croft) attend this one?
Isn’t this decision important enough to warrant an adequate public input session and Council discussion at the next Council meeting? After all, Council often spends an hour or so discussing minor variances - like the hours they spent deciding whether to permit a second driveway or the removal of a heat pump?
What also may have been wasted was the effort put in by Community Groups who promoted this Council Meeting on the Secondary Suite Resolution. Interest was also generated by the Friday February 23, 2018 Oak Bay News front-page article and a letter to the Editor. Both of these publicized Councillor Nay’s Secondary Suite Implementation Resolution which was to be discussed at Council on the following Monday.
At Council, during the limited Public Participation Period, only 5 Residents were allowed to speak to this item and then only for 3-minutes. Many more members of the public who wanted to speak were denied time. There is a much more plausible option that would have allowed a public voice on this important community land use densification decision and prevented residents from having to give up another weekday evening. There was an alternate, available and sanctioned option in Procedures Bylaw #4052. Presumably, this procedure was included for important items that, for some reason, bypass public input opportunities (e.g.Council Committee of the Whole and Town Hall Meetings) The Procedures Bylaw states:
Procedures Bylaw #4052: Council Meeting Procedures:
24. Oral submissions from the public may be heard only when Council so
resolves, and shall be restricted solely to items on the circulated agenda
for that meeting.
Many residents, who showed up to speak and hear the Council discussion on Councillor Nay’s Secondary Suites Resolution, left the Meeting immediately after hearing:
- The Mayor’s eleventh-hour decision to defer the Resolution and;
- The five residents who were permitted to express their viewpoints and
- The Mayor’s (mistakenly) calling back to Council on March 6, 2018.
Council RPT - Ney Resoltn AmissThe Mayor had indicated the Secondary Suite Implementation Resolution would again be included in the Council meeting agenda. However, at the end of the meeting staff for some reason, waited to point out to the Mayor that there would be no Council Meeting on March 6th, 2018. The Mayor then announced to the remaining residents in attendance that if this were the case, Councillor Ney’s Resolution would again be part of the agenda for the next Council Meeting on March 12, 2018.
Unfortunately, the Mayor who knew he was going to defer this Resolution did not make himself aware of when the next Council meeting would be. If he had, this would have avoided so many residents leaving with misinformation.
Councillor Ney has chosen to ignore the last paragraph of page Page 63 in the OCP Resident Survey Findings regarding “inconclusive results on acceptance of Secondary Suites” as well as the two 2016 District survey results. Instead, as her carefully worded Resolution indicates, she wants Council to decide to implement Secondary Suites in all of Oak Bay.
Any Public consultation then would be limited to how this major land change would be accomplished. If Council members Jenson, Ney, Kirby and Croft follow their usual practice of ignoring resident input when approving most of the extensive development applications, then basement suite and Infill legislation will be inevitable in our Single family neighbouhoods.
_____________________________________________________________________
Please see Correction to our February 24, 2018 Newsletter: The page 43 reference was incorrect regarding, "Results on Resident acceptance of Secondary Suites was inconclusive" in the Official Community Plan Survey on the District Website Municipal Hall/Plans & Reports/Projects & Initiatives, it should have read PAGE 63. Sorry for the inconvenience WE are trying to save Oak Bay.
____________________________________________________________________
Due to the length of this Agenda Item summary, Oak Bay Watch will (very soon) be providing Stage ll of the February 26, 2018 Council Meeting, The Agenda Item topics are:
- The “troubling” Public Engagement Report approved by the Majority of Councilors attending. Councillors Braithwaite and Murdoch – Against
- Councillor Braithwaite’s understandable concern about action taken and the Council discussion about a home demolition without the required District Permit.
*******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 newsletter – bottom of Newsletter Menu Item.
Attachment #1
British Columbia Housing Strategy 2018
"Development Cost Charges are designed to provide a means of requiring developers to pay for some of the costs of development".