Newsletter – March 9, 2019
Are you willing to pay $235,000 to bring Basement Suite and Infill Development to Oak Bay?
Well the Planning Department is and the Director of Planning and the Acting Chief Administrative officer have recommended doing just that. What’s more, they report the 2012 one-staff Planning Department now has a staff compliment of 7 strong and a planning assistant and they are ready to go. The District also wants to know if you are in favour of increasing the annual $160 that the average household is currently paying for the Planning Department. Perhaps Oak Bay Watch and Council did not explain to the Planning Department the fundamentals of the “First Things First Priority Plan” well enough.
The Mayor has. He explained once at Council and once at an Advisory Planning Commission meeting, with the Director of Building and Planning and the Manager of Planning in attendance, that developing a comprehensive Housing Strategy is what the new Council wants to accomplish in this 4 year Council term. Council has also set a number of important priorities they want to move forward with at the same time. Three of these are: infrastructure improvement, financial reporting and public engagement.
Before the Municipal Election in 2018, three now re-elected Council members, Mayor Murdoch, Councillors Braithwaite and Zhelka voted in favor of the following motions:
Both motions were defeated by the 4-member block vote.
Mayor Murdoch, Councillors Braithwaite and Zhelka however, voted against:
Both motions were approved by the 4-member block vote.
Note: While Councillor Ney’s “Implementing Secondary Suite Development motion” was being debated in Council, a Mayor’s Task Force was considering recommendations to improve Public Engagement. One has to wonder why didn't Councillor Ney’s Secondary Suite Development motion to implement Suites and Infill in single-family neighbourhoods, come before Council’s Committee of the Whole for resident viewpoints and discussion? After all Councillor Ney was the Chair of the Mayor’s Public Engagement Task Force.
As indicated, the Planning Department has recently reported, “an increase of 7 staff members representing 4.84% of the Municipal Budget” yet has requested residents also fund consultants to provide: demographic and background information, public engagement processes, policy development and bylaw amendments. They also want to “lead the Secondary Suite process”, though they apparently have neither the time nor expertise to carry out these basic planning tasks (see Appendix #1).
Oak Bay Watches Perspective
We remember when a quarter of a million dollars was considered a lot of money. We are at a loss to explain how an extensive Planning Report outlining “Duel Processes for Secondary Suites and Infill” at this stage is back on Council and Advisory Planning Department Agendas. Let alone suggesting $235,000 consultant budget allocations when the new Council is in the process of looking for ways to provide and borrow infrastructure upgrading funding and getting runaway taxes and finances in order.
A concern, also expressed by Council Zhelka at a February Council Priority Meeting, was that obviously the Director of Planning was not at the University of Victoria Open-House meetings held by the District promoting Infill Development. Most residents at the 2 packed meetings made it very clear that the consultant’s infill development proposal was not something they wanted in Oak Bay. Who is driving the Planning Department’s Basement Suite/ Infill implementation objective? Is the District really asking residents if they want to add more Planning Staff when this Department’s budget already rivals that of the Engineering Department. (See District on-line Budget Survey).
These meetings resulted in an emergency session of Council and a reset of the 2015 Residential Infill Strategy. This turned out to be cancellation of all planned Community consultation sessions and surveys and Councillor Ney’s Resolution/ Motion to Implement Secondary Suite Development, approved by a slim 1 vote tie-breaking margin.
This initial 2015 Residential Infill Strategy cost taxpayers $45,000 plus undisclosed expenses and significant staff time. Presumably some of the work was completed as the boiler plate Infill Proposal and the 2 same-day meetings would not have cost all of the $45,000 expenditure.However, the March 4th, 2019 Director of Planning Report has suggested a new start by duplicating the Community-rejected 2017 Residential Infill Strategy and requested an additional couple of hundred thousand dollar consultant contract increase (See Appendix) #2). He does say some work has been done but, doesn't provide the details Council has requested.
It is also disturbing to us that the March 4, 2019 Planning Report to Council has an 8-page April 18, 2018 “correspondence” report attached from a Temporary Acting Chief Administrative Officer. The Report provides extensive additional data promoting basement suites and infill development. His report was sent to all Council members but states it is specifically for “The benefit of those of you who support regulated secondary Suites”. It is notable that we cannot find any previous record of the temporary acting Chief Administrative Officer’s April 18, 2018 report being provided to the Public.
The Director of Building and Planning March 4, 2019 Report is scheduled to come before Council on Monday March 11, 2019 at 7;00 pm but does not provide any input or correspondence from the many residents who oppose suite development. He perhaps doesn't realize what has been made perfectly clear many times, is the Community and Council are split on this issue, and most likely from the evidence, not evenly. We can only speculate this is why the Director of Building and Planning Report has only provided pro-suite development information and did not provide both sides of this important land-use change, very controversial issue.
Our recommendation would be for Council to instruct the Planning Department to:
Provide a successful Secondary Suite and Infill working model based on another District’s experience that:
to moving into basement suites). Basement suites are not adequate
accommodation for families or multiple tenants.
At the February Priority Sessions Councillor Paterson provided Council and Staff with the information that the Provincial Government is developing an initiative to provide funding to small municipalities for a housing needs study. This funding has not been finalized and it may be some time until funding is available. Few details have been provided. There is no guarantee it will be forthcoming nor if a requirement will be matching funding.
The bottom line is there are so many variables and this Provincial initiative should not be used to promote over-densification. It is very unlikely the Province will dictate the housing needs for each municipality – these will obviously be different. However, it is likely any recoverable Provincial funds will not come close to recovering the $235.000 plus additional expenses, and staff time that the Director of Building and Planning is requesting.
There is a blizzard of information out there on basement suite and Infill development that should not be that difficult to find for a staff of seven and a part time planning assistant. A large part of this information unfortunately explains the unresolved, maybe unsolvable, basement suite and infill problems all municipalities are struggling with. The Provincial Secondary Suite Guidelines that promote secondary suites has labelled these problems challenges.
Perhaps this is why in the past two District pro over development administrations 2012 – 2018 none of the impact problems have been highlighted? It is Oak Bay Watch’s opinion any future Infill Process must provide residents with all the problem impact information and proposed solutions and not try to keep residents in the dark.
Appendix #1
Building and Planning March 2018 Report
“The Building and Planning Department would lead the secondary suite process, with a consultant utilized for specific sections of the project. It is anticipated that consultant services would be used to assist with background documentation, public engagement process, and providing overall recommendations that lead toward policy and bylaw amendments. In addition to staff resources, staff estimates an additional $60,000 would be required for consultant services, which has been included in the budget following Council's initial direction to consider secondary suites”.
Appendix #2
Almost identical to the rejected 2015 Residential Infill Strategy
Are you willing to pay $235,000 to bring Basement Suite and Infill Development to Oak Bay?
Well the Planning Department is and the Director of Planning and the Acting Chief Administrative officer have recommended doing just that. What’s more, they report the 2012 one-staff Planning Department now has a staff compliment of 7 strong and a planning assistant and they are ready to go. The District also wants to know if you are in favour of increasing the annual $160 that the average household is currently paying for the Planning Department. Perhaps Oak Bay Watch and Council did not explain to the Planning Department the fundamentals of the “First Things First Priority Plan” well enough.
The Mayor has. He explained once at Council and once at an Advisory Planning Commission meeting, with the Director of Building and Planning and the Manager of Planning in attendance, that developing a comprehensive Housing Strategy is what the new Council wants to accomplish in this 4 year Council term. Council has also set a number of important priorities they want to move forward with at the same time. Three of these are: infrastructure improvement, financial reporting and public engagement.
Before the Municipal Election in 2018, three now re-elected Council members, Mayor Murdoch, Councillors Braithwaite and Zhelka voted in favor of the following motions:
- “Developing a public engagement plan and implement policy, regulations, and bylaws for a comprehensive community development and housing plan” and secondary suite consideration only be included in that Plan (not the main initiative).
- Deferring the consideration of awarding the request for $60,000 for a secondary suite consultant contract to a November 2018 Council meeting (until after the October 2018 Civic Election).
Both motions were defeated by the 4-member block vote.
Mayor Murdoch, Councillors Braithwaite and Zhelka however, voted against:
- Councillor Ney’s motion to “Implement Secondary Suites (Infill) in Oak Bay and
- To allocate $60,000 to facilitate Secondary Suites. This was the same Consultant Company that gave us the developer benefit Official Community Plan.
Both motions were approved by the 4-member block vote.
Note: While Councillor Ney’s “Implementing Secondary Suite Development motion” was being debated in Council, a Mayor’s Task Force was considering recommendations to improve Public Engagement. One has to wonder why didn't Councillor Ney’s Secondary Suite Development motion to implement Suites and Infill in single-family neighbourhoods, come before Council’s Committee of the Whole for resident viewpoints and discussion? After all Councillor Ney was the Chair of the Mayor’s Public Engagement Task Force.
As indicated, the Planning Department has recently reported, “an increase of 7 staff members representing 4.84% of the Municipal Budget” yet has requested residents also fund consultants to provide: demographic and background information, public engagement processes, policy development and bylaw amendments. They also want to “lead the Secondary Suite process”, though they apparently have neither the time nor expertise to carry out these basic planning tasks (see Appendix #1).
Oak Bay Watches Perspective
We remember when a quarter of a million dollars was considered a lot of money. We are at a loss to explain how an extensive Planning Report outlining “Duel Processes for Secondary Suites and Infill” at this stage is back on Council and Advisory Planning Department Agendas. Let alone suggesting $235,000 consultant budget allocations when the new Council is in the process of looking for ways to provide and borrow infrastructure upgrading funding and getting runaway taxes and finances in order.
A concern, also expressed by Council Zhelka at a February Council Priority Meeting, was that obviously the Director of Planning was not at the University of Victoria Open-House meetings held by the District promoting Infill Development. Most residents at the 2 packed meetings made it very clear that the consultant’s infill development proposal was not something they wanted in Oak Bay. Who is driving the Planning Department’s Basement Suite/ Infill implementation objective? Is the District really asking residents if they want to add more Planning Staff when this Department’s budget already rivals that of the Engineering Department. (See District on-line Budget Survey).
These meetings resulted in an emergency session of Council and a reset of the 2015 Residential Infill Strategy. This turned out to be cancellation of all planned Community consultation sessions and surveys and Councillor Ney’s Resolution/ Motion to Implement Secondary Suite Development, approved by a slim 1 vote tie-breaking margin.
This initial 2015 Residential Infill Strategy cost taxpayers $45,000 plus undisclosed expenses and significant staff time. Presumably some of the work was completed as the boiler plate Infill Proposal and the 2 same-day meetings would not have cost all of the $45,000 expenditure.However, the March 4th, 2019 Director of Planning Report has suggested a new start by duplicating the Community-rejected 2017 Residential Infill Strategy and requested an additional couple of hundred thousand dollar consultant contract increase (See Appendix) #2). He does say some work has been done but, doesn't provide the details Council has requested.
It is also disturbing to us that the March 4, 2019 Planning Report to Council has an 8-page April 18, 2018 “correspondence” report attached from a Temporary Acting Chief Administrative Officer. The Report provides extensive additional data promoting basement suites and infill development. His report was sent to all Council members but states it is specifically for “The benefit of those of you who support regulated secondary Suites”. It is notable that we cannot find any previous record of the temporary acting Chief Administrative Officer’s April 18, 2018 report being provided to the Public.
The Director of Building and Planning March 4, 2019 Report is scheduled to come before Council on Monday March 11, 2019 at 7;00 pm but does not provide any input or correspondence from the many residents who oppose suite development. He perhaps doesn't realize what has been made perfectly clear many times, is the Community and Council are split on this issue, and most likely from the evidence, not evenly. We can only speculate this is why the Director of Building and Planning Report has only provided pro-suite development information and did not provide both sides of this important land-use change, very controversial issue.
Our recommendation would be for Council to instruct the Planning Department to:
Provide a successful Secondary Suite and Infill working model based on another District’s experience that:
- Is financially self-supporting through adequate taxation and fees. This must include expensive enforcement and registration costs.
- Has successfully controlled illegal Airbnb businesses.
- Has successfully controlled Absentee Landlords
- Has successfully controlled multiple tenants.
- Has developed a successful residents complaint process
- Has solved the street parking problem that line streets with cars.
- Has prevented the loss of trees, green space and soil content.
- Has resulted in a high ratio of existing suite registration.
- Has not resulted in additional illegal suites on the same property.
- That defines who is involved, who benefits, who does not, who is
to moving into basement suites). Basement suites are not adequate
accommodation for families or multiple tenants.
At the February Priority Sessions Councillor Paterson provided Council and Staff with the information that the Provincial Government is developing an initiative to provide funding to small municipalities for a housing needs study. This funding has not been finalized and it may be some time until funding is available. Few details have been provided. There is no guarantee it will be forthcoming nor if a requirement will be matching funding.
The bottom line is there are so many variables and this Provincial initiative should not be used to promote over-densification. It is very unlikely the Province will dictate the housing needs for each municipality – these will obviously be different. However, it is likely any recoverable Provincial funds will not come close to recovering the $235.000 plus additional expenses, and staff time that the Director of Building and Planning is requesting.
There is a blizzard of information out there on basement suite and Infill development that should not be that difficult to find for a staff of seven and a part time planning assistant. A large part of this information unfortunately explains the unresolved, maybe unsolvable, basement suite and infill problems all municipalities are struggling with. The Provincial Secondary Suite Guidelines that promote secondary suites has labelled these problems challenges.
Perhaps this is why in the past two District pro over development administrations 2012 – 2018 none of the impact problems have been highlighted? It is Oak Bay Watch’s opinion any future Infill Process must provide residents with all the problem impact information and proposed solutions and not try to keep residents in the dark.
Appendix #1
Building and Planning March 2018 Report
“The Building and Planning Department would lead the secondary suite process, with a consultant utilized for specific sections of the project. It is anticipated that consultant services would be used to assist with background documentation, public engagement process, and providing overall recommendations that lead toward policy and bylaw amendments. In addition to staff resources, staff estimates an additional $60,000 would be required for consultant services, which has been included in the budget following Council's initial direction to consider secondary suites”.
Appendix #2
Almost identical to the rejected 2015 Residential Infill Strategy
