Newsletter: January 9, 2021: “If you lose control of development, there goes the neighbourhood” – Oak Bay Watch.
Newsletters
The storms of the last two weeks and the pending storms surely will have alerted Council that the District has reached a “fork in the road”. The last line of the Oak Bay Watch December 29, 2020 Newsletter informed Council that they had only 2 years left in their term to take control and get it right.
The left fork will lead to a continuation of the past two years failure to address the critical issues identified by residents in 2010 and through to the present day.
The District’s leadership has spent a lot of this 2-year time period and the District’s taxpayers' resources considering and debating “lesser priorities” and side-issues. Much of this staff and Council activity has distracted them from adequately addressing the two most important and urgent resident objectives:
This explains the new excessive lot coverage residents have been understandably concerned and upset about. The many permitted exemptions are not counted in the lot coverage calculation, and this overrides the 30% limitation. This amount of over-building spoils streetscapes and puts tremendous pressure on the exiting infrastructure.
The main focus in the past two years has been to further expand the administrative staff justified by the need to address the 97 staff priorities identified in the Corporate Plan. This Plan improperly “mixed in” a set of staff operational objectives and accomplishments.
One Council member, expressing their disapproval, described the Corporate Plan as “more operational than strategic”. The administration openly admitted that mixing in operations with priorities is not a standard procedure. It is not necessary to identify expected and usual staff undertakings and accomplishments that are appropriately presented in the Annual Report. There is no doubt this has contributed to blurring the way ahead.
The right fork on the other hand would point this Council in the right direction. This would be to listen to what residents have consistently been telling them: Improve and rebuild the aging, over-stressed infrastructure and stop, what now is and has proven to be, the unsustainable over-building that is destroying our neighbourhoods.
Council must show some real leadership. If Council fails to address, or fails to be close to accomplishing, the right fork objectives in the next two years, they not only will be wasting a lot of time and resources, but be placing the District in an even more precarious liveability and financial position.
Vancouver and Victoria took the wrong fork in the road some time ago and are now dealing with the consequences of their, “the horse has left the barn, now close the door” densification and infrastructure policy. (see picture and details Appendix #1).
If Council doesn’t set the right direction and objectives they cannot hope to achieve the right outcomes. Oak Bay Watch and experts have identified many of the real and very serious impacts and that harm the excessive lot coverage and over-building and continues to create.
Administrative staff expansion and consultant costs to address less important issues have diverted hundreds of thousands of tax dollars away from infrastructure maintenance and improvement. Engineering Management in previous Annual Reports has explained that redirecting public works staff to provide off-site services for the volume of new development seriously reduces the time our staff can spend on maintaining and replacing the failing infrastructure.
Simply Explained: Oak Bay for many years now has been built-out. Our end-of-life infrastructure was designed and constructed to service that built form. It could not, and was never intended to, provide the capacity for the amount of today's new development’s “excessive” lot coverage. This has resulted in much more storm water runoff, water consumption and sewerage.
The previous Official Community Plan objectives were to:
The 2007 Zoning Bylaw change has resulted in thirteen years of overbuilding and this continues to impact “the green and landscaped character of Oak Bay”. And as importantly, and many indicators point to this, it is overburdening the already failing infrastructure and destruction of Oak Bay’s environment and heritage.
Oak Bay Watch Perspective (read on for more information)
It doesn’t take a math degree to figure out preparing the infrastructure for increased capacity before adding so much density is sound planning policy. As indicated over the last 10-years the community has consistently delivered this same message to Council.
Residents engaged by way of PowerPoint presentations to Council, open meeting protests, submissions, emails, letters to Council and Oak Bay News, in Council and Committee of the Whole meetings public participation, and a number of resident surveys. If this doesn’t qualify as not listening to the Community what does?
When will we see collaborative, joint decision making public engagement?
The previous two Directors of Building and Planning responded to community concerns by alerting their Councils to the fact there were inconsistencies in the Zoning By-Law. The present Director of Planning however, has remained silent on the Zoning inconsistency issue and like Uncle Remus’ Brer Fox is “laying low”.
So low in fact that the Planning Department under his leadership has delayed any Zoning Bylaw review for a year or more to an unspecified future date. In the meantime, he is aggressively pursuing more densification. This only negates addressing the urgent, required, resident-identified changes in this Council’s term. Could this be the plan?
A confused, year-long strategic initiatives process and the muddled, and dissimilar Corporate Plan information have impeded Council from adequately addressing the two important Community objectives (infrastructure upgrading, followed by a return to moderate, proportionate development).
It has also meant Council has allowed staff to continue to pursue, the last two Councils’ (majority) recommended densification objectives. Even though this has been proven to be a very destructive, over-building agenda that was soundly rejected by residents in Oak Bay'’ 2018 election.
By not addressing the 2014 FAR Zoning Committee‘s “more-harm-than-good” recommendations will mean over-densification will carry on unchecked for two more years. The danger, besides the damage this will cause, is who knows how many more developer-supported Council members will be elected in 2022 to form the next Council and decide Oak Bay’s future? Another Council with a single-family neighbourhood densification agenda is a real possibility.
Council must take a strong leadership role from here on, listen to their community and insist that the Planning Department prioritize a non-biased review of the unstable, lacking in control, overly generous zoning bylaw.
“Nothing is inevitable if you are paying attention” Oak Bay Watch
__________________________________________
*******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 and sign up for our newsletter – bottom of Newsletter Menu Item.
Appendix #1 Vancouver Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Newsletters
The storms of the last two weeks and the pending storms surely will have alerted Council that the District has reached a “fork in the road”. The last line of the Oak Bay Watch December 29, 2020 Newsletter informed Council that they had only 2 years left in their term to take control and get it right.
The left fork will lead to a continuation of the past two years failure to address the critical issues identified by residents in 2010 and through to the present day.
The District’s leadership has spent a lot of this 2-year time period and the District’s taxpayers' resources considering and debating “lesser priorities” and side-issues. Much of this staff and Council activity has distracted them from adequately addressing the two most important and urgent resident objectives:
- The infrastructure crisis: The District is currently spending one-third of the infrastructure budget on fixing leaks and dealing with several large water main breaks.
- Correcting the long-ago identified “inconsistencies” in the Zoning Bylaw. The latest revelation was by a 2014 Floor Area Review Committee member who stated that the 2014 Floor Area Review (Zoning) Committee recommended, and Council approved, far too many exemptions. He warned that developers are using many or all of them “To build to the maximum”.
This explains the new excessive lot coverage residents have been understandably concerned and upset about. The many permitted exemptions are not counted in the lot coverage calculation, and this overrides the 30% limitation. This amount of over-building spoils streetscapes and puts tremendous pressure on the exiting infrastructure.
The main focus in the past two years has been to further expand the administrative staff justified by the need to address the 97 staff priorities identified in the Corporate Plan. This Plan improperly “mixed in” a set of staff operational objectives and accomplishments.
One Council member, expressing their disapproval, described the Corporate Plan as “more operational than strategic”. The administration openly admitted that mixing in operations with priorities is not a standard procedure. It is not necessary to identify expected and usual staff undertakings and accomplishments that are appropriately presented in the Annual Report. There is no doubt this has contributed to blurring the way ahead.
The right fork on the other hand would point this Council in the right direction. This would be to listen to what residents have consistently been telling them: Improve and rebuild the aging, over-stressed infrastructure and stop, what now is and has proven to be, the unsustainable over-building that is destroying our neighbourhoods.
Council must show some real leadership. If Council fails to address, or fails to be close to accomplishing, the right fork objectives in the next two years, they not only will be wasting a lot of time and resources, but be placing the District in an even more precarious liveability and financial position.
Vancouver and Victoria took the wrong fork in the road some time ago and are now dealing with the consequences of their, “the horse has left the barn, now close the door” densification and infrastructure policy. (see picture and details Appendix #1).
If Council doesn’t set the right direction and objectives they cannot hope to achieve the right outcomes. Oak Bay Watch and experts have identified many of the real and very serious impacts and that harm the excessive lot coverage and over-building and continues to create.
Administrative staff expansion and consultant costs to address less important issues have diverted hundreds of thousands of tax dollars away from infrastructure maintenance and improvement. Engineering Management in previous Annual Reports has explained that redirecting public works staff to provide off-site services for the volume of new development seriously reduces the time our staff can spend on maintaining and replacing the failing infrastructure.
Simply Explained: Oak Bay for many years now has been built-out. Our end-of-life infrastructure was designed and constructed to service that built form. It could not, and was never intended to, provide the capacity for the amount of today's new development’s “excessive” lot coverage. This has resulted in much more storm water runoff, water consumption and sewerage.
The previous Official Community Plan objectives were to:
- Preserve the residential character of Oak Bay.
- Maintain and enhance the green and landscaped character of Oak Bay.
- Preserve the quiet nature of the community.
The 2007 Zoning Bylaw change has resulted in thirteen years of overbuilding and this continues to impact “the green and landscaped character of Oak Bay”. And as importantly, and many indicators point to this, it is overburdening the already failing infrastructure and destruction of Oak Bay’s environment and heritage.
Oak Bay Watch Perspective (read on for more information)
It doesn’t take a math degree to figure out preparing the infrastructure for increased capacity before adding so much density is sound planning policy. As indicated over the last 10-years the community has consistently delivered this same message to Council.
Residents engaged by way of PowerPoint presentations to Council, open meeting protests, submissions, emails, letters to Council and Oak Bay News, in Council and Committee of the Whole meetings public participation, and a number of resident surveys. If this doesn’t qualify as not listening to the Community what does?
When will we see collaborative, joint decision making public engagement?
The previous two Directors of Building and Planning responded to community concerns by alerting their Councils to the fact there were inconsistencies in the Zoning By-Law. The present Director of Planning however, has remained silent on the Zoning inconsistency issue and like Uncle Remus’ Brer Fox is “laying low”.
So low in fact that the Planning Department under his leadership has delayed any Zoning Bylaw review for a year or more to an unspecified future date. In the meantime, he is aggressively pursuing more densification. This only negates addressing the urgent, required, resident-identified changes in this Council’s term. Could this be the plan?
A confused, year-long strategic initiatives process and the muddled, and dissimilar Corporate Plan information have impeded Council from adequately addressing the two important Community objectives (infrastructure upgrading, followed by a return to moderate, proportionate development).
It has also meant Council has allowed staff to continue to pursue, the last two Councils’ (majority) recommended densification objectives. Even though this has been proven to be a very destructive, over-building agenda that was soundly rejected by residents in Oak Bay'’ 2018 election.
By not addressing the 2014 FAR Zoning Committee‘s “more-harm-than-good” recommendations will mean over-densification will carry on unchecked for two more years. The danger, besides the damage this will cause, is who knows how many more developer-supported Council members will be elected in 2022 to form the next Council and decide Oak Bay’s future? Another Council with a single-family neighbourhood densification agenda is a real possibility.
Council must take a strong leadership role from here on, listen to their community and insist that the Planning Department prioritize a non-biased review of the unstable, lacking in control, overly generous zoning bylaw.
“Nothing is inevitable if you are paying attention” Oak Bay Watch
__________________________________________
*******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 and sign up for our newsletter – bottom of Newsletter Menu Item.
Appendix #1 Vancouver Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Last year Vancouver laid 30 kilometers of new infrastructure pipes throughout the City to service their 1986 -2020 developer-oriented Councils’ out-of- control densification policies. This is just one of a number of major infrastructure projects the city has undertaken in recent years.
These were post-development required infrastructure upgrades. Victoria in the same delayed development servicing position has had to budget $30,000,000 as a starting point to address the new after- the-fact infrastructure needs. Most of these City's multi-million dollar infrastructure costs will be borne by existing taxpayers.
An argument can be made that the current infrastructure is very old and would need replacing anyway. However, dealing with the results of the stress and harm of the rapid expansion of over-densification is the real issue.
These were post-development required infrastructure upgrades. Victoria in the same delayed development servicing position has had to budget $30,000,000 as a starting point to address the new after- the-fact infrastructure needs. Most of these City's multi-million dollar infrastructure costs will be borne by existing taxpayers.
An argument can be made that the current infrastructure is very old and would need replacing anyway. However, dealing with the results of the stress and harm of the rapid expansion of over-densification is the real issue.