Oak Bay Watch - Newsletter March 23, 2017
Newsletters
Transparency – Oak Bay Council has it covered (literally).
Summary
Oak Bay Council has taken shutting out public input to a whole new, even lower, level. Council continues to make it as difficult as possible for residents to provide input about land use and Infill Development. This is even though a 2012 and now a 2016 Public Engagement Task Force has made recommendations, supported by Provincial Government Public Consultation Guidelines, to provide a range of comprehensive resident engagement methods. These include: town hall meetings, surveys, focus groups, open houses, workshops and even a “coffee with Councilors suggestion” etc. During the more than two years (120 weeks) this Council has been in office, only two of the above-recommended options have been provided. The two exceptions were one community satisfaction survey that addressed the existing services and two same-day duel open-house meetings that provided only infill design information provided by consultants.
Quite the record so far: however Council's transparency criteria have now become even more restrictive.
Read on for more information……………….
To date Council’s public process has been mainly to depend on: 3 minutes for each resident, in a maximum twenty minute public participation period before Council - with no questions answered; short notice Council meeting announcements & agendas; and late stage bylaw readings & adoptions. Committee of the Whole Meetings, with public input items are often being placed at the end of hours-long Council agendas.
In contrast, the Mayor and Council has demonstrated a bias for developer input. An example of this partiality recently occurred at Council on Monday March 20th, 2017. A development team proposing a spot zoned 43 condo building was afforded almost an hour and a half to present and justify their proposal (for the third time) and engage in a question and answer period with Councillors. When it came to the public’s turn however, each speaker was allowed just three minutes to voice their viewpoint. This meant that the 10-15 resident speakers were given only 30 to 45 minutes total to the developer’s 90 minutes.
What made matters worse was resident questions were recorded and answered only after the public consultation period was closed. This process resulted in:
If this process were not bad enough, it appears many important questions were not recorded as they were not presented and therefore not answered.
Council provided no rationale as it broke with tradition by voting with two Council members absent, to move the Condo Proposal to a public hearing. It was stated that if approved there, the proposal would at this point, “be tweaked”.
It must be noted that:
This condo building at Bowker & Cadboro Bay will cover almost 90% of its land, has zero setbacks, and will destroy many trees. Furthermore its massing would make it by far the largest multiple-dwelling building ever proposed for Oak Bay. Many from the public who spoke and two Council members (Braithwaite and Zhelka) voted against the project stating they were not opposed to a development at the intersection but, their main issue was that it should conform with Oak Bay zoning and parking standards. Councillor Braithwaite asked that this item be deferred as it was such an important decision for the Community, She explained that as there was such a close 3 to 2 Council split, given the absentees, it would be appropriate to defer the decision to move the proposal on to a public approval meeting. Her motion was defeated.
After a recess the meeting continued with a number of applicants requesting development variances. Each was allowed an unlimited time period to present their proposals.
At 11:00 pm (four hours into the meeting) the last item on the agenda was a little publicized, unreleased Oak Bay Asset Management Report and a Building Asset Management Report. These two reports contain vitally important information that indicate over-whelming deficiencies, liabilities and debt load potential for taxpayers of Oak Bay, both currently and into the future. That this information was finally released (after many months and at the end of a long meeting) may be due to the persistence and analytical expertise of a member of the public.
This confirms public participation is absolutely key. As indicated, two-way inclusive conversation is so necessary to allow residents to offer suggestions: in this situation, to point out where mistakes and deficiencies were made.
At this late hour only a handful of residents remained and two spoke (and with the time restriction) to the significance and importance of these reports and stated all residents must be informed of the content. They expressed their concern that, given their extreme importance, the reports had not been presented prior to the lengthy, much earlier developer presentation with so many residents in attendance.
The implications of these just released reports are so wide-ranging and the impacts so far reaching that they will be discussed fully in an upcoming Oak Bay Watch newsletter - just as soon as they can be adequately analyzed.
Meanwhile the degree of Council transparency in Oak Bay remains at what has to be an all time low.
*******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)
Newsletters
Transparency – Oak Bay Council has it covered (literally).
Summary
Oak Bay Council has taken shutting out public input to a whole new, even lower, level. Council continues to make it as difficult as possible for residents to provide input about land use and Infill Development. This is even though a 2012 and now a 2016 Public Engagement Task Force has made recommendations, supported by Provincial Government Public Consultation Guidelines, to provide a range of comprehensive resident engagement methods. These include: town hall meetings, surveys, focus groups, open houses, workshops and even a “coffee with Councilors suggestion” etc. During the more than two years (120 weeks) this Council has been in office, only two of the above-recommended options have been provided. The two exceptions were one community satisfaction survey that addressed the existing services and two same-day duel open-house meetings that provided only infill design information provided by consultants.
Quite the record so far: however Council's transparency criteria have now become even more restrictive.
Read on for more information……………….
To date Council’s public process has been mainly to depend on: 3 minutes for each resident, in a maximum twenty minute public participation period before Council - with no questions answered; short notice Council meeting announcements & agendas; and late stage bylaw readings & adoptions. Committee of the Whole Meetings, with public input items are often being placed at the end of hours-long Council agendas.
In contrast, the Mayor and Council has demonstrated a bias for developer input. An example of this partiality recently occurred at Council on Monday March 20th, 2017. A development team proposing a spot zoned 43 condo building was afforded almost an hour and a half to present and justify their proposal (for the third time) and engage in a question and answer period with Councillors. When it came to the public’s turn however, each speaker was allowed just three minutes to voice their viewpoint. This meant that the 10-15 resident speakers were given only 30 to 45 minutes total to the developer’s 90 minutes.
What made matters worse was resident questions were recorded and answered only after the public consultation period was closed. This process resulted in:
- Closing off any two-way discussion and severely limiting information exchange between the public and Council.
- Allowing misinterpretation of the public’s questions with no opportunity for clarification.
- Answers made out of context from the viewpoint of the resident, and the reasoning presented for asking the question.
If this process were not bad enough, it appears many important questions were not recorded as they were not presented and therefore not answered.
Council provided no rationale as it broke with tradition by voting with two Council members absent, to move the Condo Proposal to a public hearing. It was stated that if approved there, the proposal would at this point, “be tweaked”.
It must be noted that:
- Council’s “tweaking record” during and after public hearings is not good;
- A Council member who had attended this meeting with a fever provided the (3-2) swing vote to move the proposal forward for zoning approval. They left the meeting after the vote;
- Introduced to Council on January 16th, 2017, this large scale, controversial development proposal was only partway through a community consultation process. It was now on a Council agenda as a Bylaw No. 4680, Ninety-Seventh Zoning Bylaw. A public meeting that would have included two-way Public/ Council communication, ostensibly to find out public opinion, had been promised but never provided. This speaks volumes about the majority of Mayor and Council’s intent, mindset and disregard for public input.
This condo building at Bowker & Cadboro Bay will cover almost 90% of its land, has zero setbacks, and will destroy many trees. Furthermore its massing would make it by far the largest multiple-dwelling building ever proposed for Oak Bay. Many from the public who spoke and two Council members (Braithwaite and Zhelka) voted against the project stating they were not opposed to a development at the intersection but, their main issue was that it should conform with Oak Bay zoning and parking standards. Councillor Braithwaite asked that this item be deferred as it was such an important decision for the Community, She explained that as there was such a close 3 to 2 Council split, given the absentees, it would be appropriate to defer the decision to move the proposal on to a public approval meeting. Her motion was defeated.
After a recess the meeting continued with a number of applicants requesting development variances. Each was allowed an unlimited time period to present their proposals.
At 11:00 pm (four hours into the meeting) the last item on the agenda was a little publicized, unreleased Oak Bay Asset Management Report and a Building Asset Management Report. These two reports contain vitally important information that indicate over-whelming deficiencies, liabilities and debt load potential for taxpayers of Oak Bay, both currently and into the future. That this information was finally released (after many months and at the end of a long meeting) may be due to the persistence and analytical expertise of a member of the public.
This confirms public participation is absolutely key. As indicated, two-way inclusive conversation is so necessary to allow residents to offer suggestions: in this situation, to point out where mistakes and deficiencies were made.
At this late hour only a handful of residents remained and two spoke (and with the time restriction) to the significance and importance of these reports and stated all residents must be informed of the content. They expressed their concern that, given their extreme importance, the reports had not been presented prior to the lengthy, much earlier developer presentation with so many residents in attendance.
The implications of these just released reports are so wide-ranging and the impacts so far reaching that they will be discussed fully in an upcoming Oak Bay Watch newsletter - just as soon as they can be adequately analyzed.
Meanwhile the degree of Council transparency in Oak Bay remains at what has to be an all time low.
*******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)