Houston ...Err Oak Bay We have a Problem
The short version
Council's Strategic Priorities Disregard the Community's clear Input:
There is a major conflict between what the community wants and the priorities Council and the Administration have come up with in the past two Council Terms. The Chief Administrative Officer's Report of February 2, 2017 details a “reset” of Council's goals and priorities. Resident's comments are requested on short notice. This new Council Strategic Planning process & outcome substantiates and confirms this serious problem.
The usual limited time to respond and the typical one-way conversation method Council employs as their primary public consultation process on important matters are almost a certainty most of the time. Given their over-development agenda, nothing or very little will change from the Report’s listed 2017/2018 Priorities. The real issue is the Community should have been consulted on these priorities, long before now - after Council was elected in November 2014. Instead, shortly after they took office, Council's first stage of setting goals, priorities and agenda was decided behind closed doors.
What is left out or missed from Council’s new Priorities List? What evidence should Council have considered regarding what the public wants? What community objectives that are dictated by common sense, must be achieved before Council's Development Priorities should be considered, prioritized or implemented?
Read on….
Confirmed Community Priorities
A. Not made the implementation of the very well received Urban Forest Strategy recommendations one of their priorities. They have instead handed them off to the Parks and Recreation Department but, only to have them come up with an implementation plan in 2017/2018.
B. While this may seem acceptable on the surface, the problem is Basement Suite Regulation is scheduled and prioritized to be completed by 2017/2018. The process to save trees will most likely be just beginning after that. But Secondary Suites legalization will result in a lot of off-site paving for parking on existing lots - as well as a spate of demolitions/new builds with suites, and more tree destruction, This tol generate significant supplementary income for the owner. The other issue is that the Parks Department has already indicated they will require additional resources and a budget to implement any Urban Forest Strategy Report [not yet completed] and the recommendations. Any funding for saving trees will not even be discussed until April 2019, let alone implemented. So basically Council is saying: "Let's develop first, try to save trees later".
to add this priority but, as the initial list was not made public, we may never know. True, the Mayor has identified ome non-core service
sharing. However, as most of the of the District’s services are “core and administration” these services were the main the focus of the election
promises. As this is where any real cost savings are, it must be on any rationality-driven Council Priority List.
This Task Force was renamed "Housing Retention Working Group", and it reported back to Council in June 2016. Many recommendations were made but no
actions taken. This Report on Demolitions has also has been moved to the Future Priority list presumably to be dealt with by the next Council. It has been
amalgamated with the, also- much- delayed, Heritage Preservation Strategy.
Department about new invasive houses that were being built on small lots. Many of the complainants had been impacted themselves. Council admitted
that a major zoning mistake had been made and that staff had accurately predicted the outcome and warned not to make the zoning changes. However it took the present Mayor, who was the Council representative on the original FAR Zoning Committee that recommended the mistake, four years to take
any corrective action. Unfortunately in 2014 a newly formed second Floor Area Ratio Committee only scaled back the excessive zoning changes the earlier Mayor’s Committee had recommended and a new, inexperienced Council had inadvertently passed.
Since June 2015 many monster, boxy homes continue to be built, with significant tree loss and paved over lots. Frequently, these over-developments are built next to much smaller homes that were constructed under the older, much less liberal zoning. Council, however, has not requested complaint statistics, planned or even mentioned any re-assessment or review of the Floor Area Ratio changes. Not surprisingly, this is NOT on any current or future priority list.How then can Oak Bay’s Council’s Disconnect Problem be solved bringing our Oak Bay “spaceship” back down to reality? Can Council be persuaded to honour their much-touted commitment to allow the public some involvement in Oak Bay's governance?
Good questions! But another long look at Council's current priorities that are in direct contrast to Oak Bay Residents' priorities, reveals just how far apart they really are. Council has deployed and continues to direct a significant amount of our limited resources and tax dollars to pursue their development agenda. The Chief Administrative Officer's (CAO) Report suggests:
“Should Council wish to proceed more quickly with priorities led by the Building and Planning Department (i.e. Development) it will be necessary to commit additional resources - likely an additional planning position".
This would follow the hiring in 2015 of a full-time planner whose main job responsibility after joining staff, was to carry out and often duplicate, what all past Directors of Planning previously did. The CAO and Council seem to have no idea or concern what the on-going tax implications are for hiring new, full-time administrative staff with very high salary levels plus benefits. This is on top of the $250, 000 budgeted for consultants. Each $100.000 spent represents a half of one percent of a property tax increase (compounded annually for permanent staff).
It would have been much more prudent, objective and resident-respectful for Council to have:
* Addressed expressed resident priorities and concerns, e.g. infrastructure upgrades
All of these actions should have been included in the Council priorities list ahead of many that were listed. As indicated, important community priorities have been pushed off to future councils to deal with along with the tax liabilities this Council continues to accrue.
Oak Bay is a very small municipality: single-family home property taxes is by far, the primary source of revenue to keep the municipality operating effectively. Resources are scarce and this is constantly pointed out by staff. It is critical then that Council abandon their obvious development agenda to benefit the industry, and set about responsibly managing and upgrading our municipality. It is not clear why Council often chooses to ignore the majority of residents input. Residents are judging the integrity and values of those who were elected to act in their best interest and if they do not perhaps it’s better that the Community brings Oak Bay Council back to earth.
.
The short version
Council's Strategic Priorities Disregard the Community's clear Input:
There is a major conflict between what the community wants and the priorities Council and the Administration have come up with in the past two Council Terms. The Chief Administrative Officer's Report of February 2, 2017 details a “reset” of Council's goals and priorities. Resident's comments are requested on short notice. This new Council Strategic Planning process & outcome substantiates and confirms this serious problem.
The usual limited time to respond and the typical one-way conversation method Council employs as their primary public consultation process on important matters are almost a certainty most of the time. Given their over-development agenda, nothing or very little will change from the Report’s listed 2017/2018 Priorities. The real issue is the Community should have been consulted on these priorities, long before now - after Council was elected in November 2014. Instead, shortly after they took office, Council's first stage of setting goals, priorities and agenda was decided behind closed doors.
What is left out or missed from Council’s new Priorities List? What evidence should Council have considered regarding what the public wants? What community objectives that are dictated by common sense, must be achieved before Council's Development Priorities should be considered, prioritized or implemented?
Read on….
Confirmed Community Priorities
- Ageing Infrastructure Repair and Replacement.
- Our Tree Canopy / Urban Forest Strategy Tree Bylaw Protection Update.
A. Not made the implementation of the very well received Urban Forest Strategy recommendations one of their priorities. They have instead handed them off to the Parks and Recreation Department but, only to have them come up with an implementation plan in 2017/2018.
B. While this may seem acceptable on the surface, the problem is Basement Suite Regulation is scheduled and prioritized to be completed by 2017/2018. The process to save trees will most likely be just beginning after that. But Secondary Suites legalization will result in a lot of off-site paving for parking on existing lots - as well as a spate of demolitions/new builds with suites, and more tree destruction, This tol generate significant supplementary income for the owner. The other issue is that the Parks Department has already indicated they will require additional resources and a budget to implement any Urban Forest Strategy Report [not yet completed] and the recommendations. Any funding for saving trees will not even be discussed until April 2019, let alone implemented. So basically Council is saying: "Let's develop first, try to save trees later".
- Shared Services with other municipalities – a main election promise of every Council member.
to add this priority but, as the initial list was not made public, we may never know. True, the Mayor has identified ome non-core service
sharing. However, as most of the of the District’s services are “core and administration” these services were the main the focus of the election
promises. As this is where any real cost savings are, it must be on any rationality-driven Council Priority List.
- Measuring the 0.05 % Official Community Plan Annual Growth Rate.
- While this lack of planning and concern for community safeguards, is disturbing, Council is currently considering a development at Cadboro Bay Road/ Bowker Avenue with 43 units. That alone will more than satisfy one year’s 0.05 % growth rate. There are two other large developments about to be considered and, according to the Planning Department, a number of pending subdivision applications as well. I think it is a fair question to ask what is prompting Council’s rush to densify by the end of their term. Also, the how to densify our single-family neighbourhoods needs much more planning, research, information and community consultation. Monitoring any growth rate is critical given it has been reported our infrastructure is under-funded and ageing. Of the constantly, alluded to consultations by Council, only one of the many promised in the recently discarded June 2015–Jan 2017 Residential Infill Strategy has been provided.
- Community Engagement & Consultation Task Force – formed September 11, 2015, Another much delayed Council priority –The Mayor, as a result of Community pressure, formed a Task Force on Community Engagement in 2015. A significant amount of staff time went into preparing and producing this report. It is dated March 16th, 2016 and was presented to Council in the early spring of 2016. The presenter specifically pointed out that communication with Council currently was not a “two- way street”. There was considerable opposition on Council to the Report and it was sent away for revisions based on the changes some members of Council wanted. The Community is still waiting and wondering when the revised Engagement Report is going to be ready and why it has been held up? Residents need wait no longer for an answer. Council has either disbanded the Community Engagement and Consultation Task Force, as it did with the Resident Environmental and Resident Traffic Committees, or hidden it and changed its name to "Public Engagement Enhancement /Community Engagement Working Group". As this is the title Council has placed dead last on the post 2018 Future Priorities List.
- A Demolition Task Force to provide: data, causes and options related to housing loss, formed April 2016.
This Task Force was renamed "Housing Retention Working Group", and it reported back to Council in June 2016. Many recommendations were made but no
actions taken. This Report on Demolitions has also has been moved to the Future Priority list presumably to be dealt with by the next Council. It has been
amalgamated with the, also- much- delayed, Heritage Preservation Strategy.
- Floor Area Ratio Committee Zoning Recommendation - Approved in June 2015.
Department about new invasive houses that were being built on small lots. Many of the complainants had been impacted themselves. Council admitted
that a major zoning mistake had been made and that staff had accurately predicted the outcome and warned not to make the zoning changes. However it took the present Mayor, who was the Council representative on the original FAR Zoning Committee that recommended the mistake, four years to take
any corrective action. Unfortunately in 2014 a newly formed second Floor Area Ratio Committee only scaled back the excessive zoning changes the earlier Mayor’s Committee had recommended and a new, inexperienced Council had inadvertently passed.
Since June 2015 many monster, boxy homes continue to be built, with significant tree loss and paved over lots. Frequently, these over-developments are built next to much smaller homes that were constructed under the older, much less liberal zoning. Council, however, has not requested complaint statistics, planned or even mentioned any re-assessment or review of the Floor Area Ratio changes. Not surprisingly, this is NOT on any current or future priority list.How then can Oak Bay’s Council’s Disconnect Problem be solved bringing our Oak Bay “spaceship” back down to reality? Can Council be persuaded to honour their much-touted commitment to allow the public some involvement in Oak Bay's governance?
Good questions! But another long look at Council's current priorities that are in direct contrast to Oak Bay Residents' priorities, reveals just how far apart they really are. Council has deployed and continues to direct a significant amount of our limited resources and tax dollars to pursue their development agenda. The Chief Administrative Officer's (CAO) Report suggests:
“Should Council wish to proceed more quickly with priorities led by the Building and Planning Department (i.e. Development) it will be necessary to commit additional resources - likely an additional planning position".
This would follow the hiring in 2015 of a full-time planner whose main job responsibility after joining staff, was to carry out and often duplicate, what all past Directors of Planning previously did. The CAO and Council seem to have no idea or concern what the on-going tax implications are for hiring new, full-time administrative staff with very high salary levels plus benefits. This is on top of the $250, 000 budgeted for consultants. Each $100.000 spent represents a half of one percent of a property tax increase (compounded annually for permanent staff).
It would have been much more prudent, objective and resident-respectful for Council to have:
* Addressed expressed resident priorities and concerns, e.g. infrastructure upgrades
- Solved or managed some of the existing problems identified by forming task forces, special committees and by resident submissions,
- Prioritized a Comprehensive Housing Strategy (develop an Overview),
- Developed an on-site storm water retention, rainwater management system
- Reviewed and updated the Zoning Bylaw to control demolitions, overlaying the Urban Forest Strategy recommendations to protect and prevent tree loss.
- Considered housing options with significant public input, as per the Official Community Plan (OCP).
- Ensured zoning includes the resident protection in the OCP and honours the OCP commitment and the OCP Survey questionnaire preamble not to impact existing residents with new over-development. (See OCP, Page 77 - Municipal Website)
All of these actions should have been included in the Council priorities list ahead of many that were listed. As indicated, important community priorities have been pushed off to future councils to deal with along with the tax liabilities this Council continues to accrue.
Oak Bay is a very small municipality: single-family home property taxes is by far, the primary source of revenue to keep the municipality operating effectively. Resources are scarce and this is constantly pointed out by staff. It is critical then that Council abandon their obvious development agenda to benefit the industry, and set about responsibly managing and upgrading our municipality. It is not clear why Council often chooses to ignore the majority of residents input. Residents are judging the integrity and values of those who were elected to act in their best interest and if they do not perhaps it’s better that the Community brings Oak Bay Council back to earth.
.