Council Report March 22, 2019
1. A Housing Needs Study is NOT what residents want prioritized: they are expecting an overall big picture - Housing Development Strategy that encompasses all the aspects of housing, including the impacts on the District.
The problem is Council has been misled and, like Bo Peep’s sheep, Council may have lost its way. Fortunately it’s not too late to get back on track. However, if left without factual information, they may keep wasting precious tax dollars, and keep accepting that the Planning Staff is spending so much time going in the wrong direction (explained later). How did this happen? For some unknown reason, the Planning Department misled Council into believing that the Provincial Government’s Bill 18, that mandates municipalities to develop a Housing Needs Study, is the planned Comprehensive Housing Strategy that many members of the community, and some Council members have been requesting for many years and is prescribed in the Official Community Plan. It Is Not and the Bill 18 requirements have yet to be adopted.
The BC Housing Ministry’s Needs Reports Bulletin is clear and states that the (required) housing needs reports, “can be part of a larger housing action plan or housing strategy that outlines the strategies and actions that a local government will undertake to meet the community’s needs. It also states that Municipalities will be notified “when the requirements and applicable regulations take effect” and municipalities from that point will have “three years to complete the first Housing Needs Study”. A BC Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Land Use Management Branch, representative has also confirmed this and stated it is up to each municipality to determine their housing needs and priorities.
However, at the March 11, 2019 regular meeting our understanding is Council approved $75,000 to prematurely make a start on the Provincial Housing Needs Study primarily to collect demographic information. A District’s acquiring demographic information for planning purposes is not a bad thing. However, the Planning Department has promised demographic information many times in the past but not provided it. In any event this is what the (now-expanded) Planning Department should do routinely, as part of their regular work. Does this mean the District has been approving developments all this time without the necessary planning information?
2. Where does the District of Oak Bay stand at this point?
Council recently identified the following priorities: Infrastructure, Financial, Zoning and Urban Forest reforms. It is obvious these must be addressed as soon as possible and this must be the objective of all available in-house resources. The moderate development housing options: townhouses, development of duplexes on big lots and arterials (e.g. Oak Bay Avenue and Estevan Village) have already been identified. So have taxable conversions of a limited number of large heritage homes. These are the only current, sustainable, housing options that our under-funded, “end of life”, poor-condition infrastructure can absorb at this time.
3. What Housing Initiatives are the Planning Department moving ahead with at this
time?
At the March 11, 2019 Council Meeting, the Planning Department presented yet another Secondary Suites / Infill Housing Options Process Report (the second in less than eight months). In this new Report, the Planning Department has recommended moving ahead with this intensive densification initiative. Furthermore, they have recommended spending $60,000 on top of the $45,000 already spent.
4. Would the method used to make public the Director of Planning’s Secondary Suites / Infill Housing Options Process Report be considered transparent?
More Infill and Secondary Suite development in our singe-family neighbourhoods are very contentious community issues. They include land-use, zoning, budget, regulation, enforcement and taxation impacts. The way this Secondary Suite /Infill Process Report was brought forward at a February 25, 2019 regular Council Meeting was very odd to say the least. The Report on Infill and Secondary Suites by the Director of Planning is dated March 4, 2019 but this item was not on the advanced Council March 6. 2019 posted agenda or the agenda provided to the public at the March 11, 2019 meeting. It was also not announced in the usual way, as an amended agenda item, and it is not indexed in the meeting Webcast.
It was only referenced in the Council minutes and was introduced (out of the blue), as a Notice of Motion, under “New Business”. The Notice of Motion reads. “to discuss expediting the housing needs portion of the strategic plan prior to the completion of the budget process”. The explanation given to select and bring “housing needs” forward more quickly was to provide clarity. The Director of Planning’s March 4, 2019 Report states secondary suites is a “strategic planning issue. As stated, “Secondary Suites and Infill Housing” impacts many Land-use issues and is a "hot button" Community Issue. So why was this important Director of Planning report not presented at the February 25, 2019 Special Committee of the Whole Strategic Planning Workshop that followed the Council Meeting? This would have allowed the Public to express their viewpoints?
Oak Bay Watch Perspective (read on for more information)
It should be obvious that to make any sense of Housing Needs Reports, and as explained by the provincial Government Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Land Use Management Branch verbally and twice in their Bill 18 Bulletin: these Housing Needs Reports would, “be part of a larger Housing Plan or Strategy”. So it would be logical, would it not, to develop the framework of the over-all Plan first?
Most councilors at the February 25, 2019 meeting said they were voting to bring forward a “Secondary Suites and Infill Housing” Report to provide clarity on the status of Councillor Ney’s contested motion to implement secondary suites in Oak Bay. For example how much of the contested $60,000 already allocated was still available. It was also hoped the Planning Department would shed some light on how much time was being spent on the community-rejected Residential Infill Strategy re-set.
Specifically, what had been accomplished to date by the consultant company, that Council reported was paid $45,000 and a subsidiary budget; and the considerable staff time used for this Infill Initiative. The Planning Department however did not provide any of this information in their March 11, 2019 Report to Council.
Our concern is that the Planning Department has selected 2 intensive development options that have substantial impacts and tax implications, and spent considerable time and more tax dollars on them. These intensive housing options will be very difficult to get public support for if the last-three Council community meetings that rejected these Infill initiatives are anything to go by. There are many more first stage, practical and most likely acceptable, housing options that perhaps would have been suggested if the public had any say.
Council has received the Planning Director’s Infill and Secondarily Suite Process Report for information without asking what is the status of:
HomeIt seems to us that the Planning Department should have been given a clear message not to spend precious property tax dollars on what could easily be an out-of–context and redundant development initiative? The practice of hiring Consultant Companies to do what ample staff complements should do as part of their job descriptions and training has got to stop. Particularly if the findings and recommendations of these expensive contracts are not acted on. Either hire in this expertise or contract it out, not both. There are so many more pressing District maintenance needs that need to be funded.
We also question how a 4-page Secondary Suite /Infill Director of Planning Report can be completed in 4 working days when an essential development check list and a procedures manual for the Land Use Advisory Planning Commission, cannot be completed for 2 years? And why it takes many weeks to provide Council with Committee and Commission minutes so they can make informed decisions ahead of approving the Planning Department’s recommended development applications.
As indicated, we also question why the Planning Department’s recent arbitrary, intensive housing choices were not brought forward for public discussion. After all, Council and staff have spent so much funding and so many resources to develop and commit to Public Engagement and best practices. It is apparent we have not yet reached the promised “Age of Transparency”.
--------------------------------------------
*******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
1. A Housing Needs Study is NOT what residents want prioritized: they are expecting an overall big picture - Housing Development Strategy that encompasses all the aspects of housing, including the impacts on the District.
The problem is Council has been misled and, like Bo Peep’s sheep, Council may have lost its way. Fortunately it’s not too late to get back on track. However, if left without factual information, they may keep wasting precious tax dollars, and keep accepting that the Planning Staff is spending so much time going in the wrong direction (explained later). How did this happen? For some unknown reason, the Planning Department misled Council into believing that the Provincial Government’s Bill 18, that mandates municipalities to develop a Housing Needs Study, is the planned Comprehensive Housing Strategy that many members of the community, and some Council members have been requesting for many years and is prescribed in the Official Community Plan. It Is Not and the Bill 18 requirements have yet to be adopted.
The BC Housing Ministry’s Needs Reports Bulletin is clear and states that the (required) housing needs reports, “can be part of a larger housing action plan or housing strategy that outlines the strategies and actions that a local government will undertake to meet the community’s needs. It also states that Municipalities will be notified “when the requirements and applicable regulations take effect” and municipalities from that point will have “three years to complete the first Housing Needs Study”. A BC Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Land Use Management Branch, representative has also confirmed this and stated it is up to each municipality to determine their housing needs and priorities.
However, at the March 11, 2019 regular meeting our understanding is Council approved $75,000 to prematurely make a start on the Provincial Housing Needs Study primarily to collect demographic information. A District’s acquiring demographic information for planning purposes is not a bad thing. However, the Planning Department has promised demographic information many times in the past but not provided it. In any event this is what the (now-expanded) Planning Department should do routinely, as part of their regular work. Does this mean the District has been approving developments all this time without the necessary planning information?
2. Where does the District of Oak Bay stand at this point?
Council recently identified the following priorities: Infrastructure, Financial, Zoning and Urban Forest reforms. It is obvious these must be addressed as soon as possible and this must be the objective of all available in-house resources. The moderate development housing options: townhouses, development of duplexes on big lots and arterials (e.g. Oak Bay Avenue and Estevan Village) have already been identified. So have taxable conversions of a limited number of large heritage homes. These are the only current, sustainable, housing options that our under-funded, “end of life”, poor-condition infrastructure can absorb at this time.
3. What Housing Initiatives are the Planning Department moving ahead with at this
time?
At the March 11, 2019 Council Meeting, the Planning Department presented yet another Secondary Suites / Infill Housing Options Process Report (the second in less than eight months). In this new Report, the Planning Department has recommended moving ahead with this intensive densification initiative. Furthermore, they have recommended spending $60,000 on top of the $45,000 already spent.
4. Would the method used to make public the Director of Planning’s Secondary Suites / Infill Housing Options Process Report be considered transparent?
More Infill and Secondary Suite development in our singe-family neighbourhoods are very contentious community issues. They include land-use, zoning, budget, regulation, enforcement and taxation impacts. The way this Secondary Suite /Infill Process Report was brought forward at a February 25, 2019 regular Council Meeting was very odd to say the least. The Report on Infill and Secondary Suites by the Director of Planning is dated March 4, 2019 but this item was not on the advanced Council March 6. 2019 posted agenda or the agenda provided to the public at the March 11, 2019 meeting. It was also not announced in the usual way, as an amended agenda item, and it is not indexed in the meeting Webcast.
It was only referenced in the Council minutes and was introduced (out of the blue), as a Notice of Motion, under “New Business”. The Notice of Motion reads. “to discuss expediting the housing needs portion of the strategic plan prior to the completion of the budget process”. The explanation given to select and bring “housing needs” forward more quickly was to provide clarity. The Director of Planning’s March 4, 2019 Report states secondary suites is a “strategic planning issue. As stated, “Secondary Suites and Infill Housing” impacts many Land-use issues and is a "hot button" Community Issue. So why was this important Director of Planning report not presented at the February 25, 2019 Special Committee of the Whole Strategic Planning Workshop that followed the Council Meeting? This would have allowed the Public to express their viewpoints?
Oak Bay Watch Perspective (read on for more information)
It should be obvious that to make any sense of Housing Needs Reports, and as explained by the provincial Government Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Land Use Management Branch verbally and twice in their Bill 18 Bulletin: these Housing Needs Reports would, “be part of a larger Housing Plan or Strategy”. So it would be logical, would it not, to develop the framework of the over-all Plan first?
Most councilors at the February 25, 2019 meeting said they were voting to bring forward a “Secondary Suites and Infill Housing” Report to provide clarity on the status of Councillor Ney’s contested motion to implement secondary suites in Oak Bay. For example how much of the contested $60,000 already allocated was still available. It was also hoped the Planning Department would shed some light on how much time was being spent on the community-rejected Residential Infill Strategy re-set.
Specifically, what had been accomplished to date by the consultant company, that Council reported was paid $45,000 and a subsidiary budget; and the considerable staff time used for this Infill Initiative. The Planning Department however did not provide any of this information in their March 11, 2019 Report to Council.
Our concern is that the Planning Department has selected 2 intensive development options that have substantial impacts and tax implications, and spent considerable time and more tax dollars on them. These intensive housing options will be very difficult to get public support for if the last-three Council community meetings that rejected these Infill initiatives are anything to go by. There are many more first stage, practical and most likely acceptable, housing options that perhaps would have been suggested if the public had any say.
Council has received the Planning Director’s Infill and Secondarily Suite Process Report for information without asking what is the status of:
- The “Secondary Suite Study that the Planning Department has reported is underway".
- The details of the completed Phase #1 of that study.
- What the (contested) requested $60,000 will accomplish.
HomeIt seems to us that the Planning Department should have been given a clear message not to spend precious property tax dollars on what could easily be an out-of–context and redundant development initiative? The practice of hiring Consultant Companies to do what ample staff complements should do as part of their job descriptions and training has got to stop. Particularly if the findings and recommendations of these expensive contracts are not acted on. Either hire in this expertise or contract it out, not both. There are so many more pressing District maintenance needs that need to be funded.
We also question how a 4-page Secondary Suite /Infill Director of Planning Report can be completed in 4 working days when an essential development check list and a procedures manual for the Land Use Advisory Planning Commission, cannot be completed for 2 years? And why it takes many weeks to provide Council with Committee and Commission minutes so they can make informed decisions ahead of approving the Planning Department’s recommended development applications.
As indicated, we also question why the Planning Department’s recent arbitrary, intensive housing choices were not brought forward for public discussion. After all, Council and staff have spent so much funding and so many resources to develop and commit to Public Engagement and best practices. It is apparent we have not yet reached the promised “Age of Transparency”.
--------------------------------------------
*******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