Newsletter October 7, 2022 We Need Your Attention, Please
Note: This newsletter is 3 pages long, plus 2 appendices – However, it will save plowing through the District’s 240 page Infill Strategy Report. The Report indicates the type of infill development Council is planning for neighbourhoods and is available on the District website- see September Council Meeting Agenda Item 9.1.
The latest Infill 240-page Infill Strategy Report Is a very dangerous document. It is biased, needlessly long, and provides misleading information. It is also complicated, confusing and therefore very difficult to understand. Nevertheless, based on staff’s recommendation, it was endorsed by Council at their final Council meeting on September 26, 2022
The last time Council faced the community with a residential infill strategy that included an imposing, character-changing, environmentally damaging, zoning change, was at two standing room only meetings at UVIC on September the 10, 2016. At the meetings there was no mistaking that residents rejected the strategy out of hand. At another standing room only open Council meeting at the Monterey Recreation Centre in 2010, a zoning change to permit secondary suites received a similar resident rejection.
Since those meetings, previous and the present Oak Bay Councils have bided their time. It appeared they had learned their lesson well. This Council realized that it’s no use facing the public about densifying Oak Bays single-family neighbourhoods with every form of Infill development. Council, aided by the Pandemic, has all but shut down face-to-face-public engagement. Alternately. Council and Staff have carefully and expensively manipulated the secondary suite and Infill zoning change processes to make it appear that this is what residents want.
Council and Staff have accomplished this by tactfully:
The Infill Strategy Report is filled with suspect resident approval findings. For example, its findings state there is a “high level of support” for its guiding principles and directions:
• Provide Diverse Housing Options
• Support Ease of Implementation
• Cherish What the Community Loves
And it goes on to say, “the survey results show that about seven in ten of respondents strongly or somewhat favoured these principles demonstrating a clear support for these principles.”
The “principles” however, although implied, do not necessarily support all types of infill or secondary suite development. Resident support could mean residents would be willing to endorse other more acceptable, and controllable, forms of single-family development e.g. townhouses, heritage conversions. This is more likely given the impacts - (see Oak Bay Watch Perspective for more information).
Faced with all this, it’s easy to understand why Uplands has recently formed the Uplands Neighbourhood Association and announced it at the September 26, 2022 Council meeting. They requested, most likely about their concern with the 240 page Infill Strategy Report's information, that Council provide additional consultation with the Uplands Neighbourhood on Council’s Infill Housing Strategy. (See Appendix #1 for Upland’s residents concerns)
Unfortunately, they may not be aware that council’s record for listening to resident groups, for the most part, has been less than stellar.
Oak Bay Watch Perspective
The Infill Strategy Report’s (Pages 6,7 of 240) biggest bombshell is:
“Round 3: ( Survey responses show support for this proposed (zoning) change at 74%.” (Please see more important information and full details in Appendix #2)
Proposed Zoning Change:
• reductions in side yard, front yard, and rear yard setbacks;
• increases to permitted FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
• greater lot coverage and,
• increasing the percentage of permitted paved area.
This information, above all else, demonstrates just how completely out of touch Council, staff and the consultants are with the majority of Oak Bay residents’ number #1 priority and concern - overdevelopment. Residents are concerned that this has impacted, and will continue to impact climate change, damage the environment, stress the infrastructure and result in so much more tree loss.
Their concerns have been indicated in: resident survey after resident survey; many many submissions to Councils over the years; resident standing room only meetings with Councils and numerous letters to editors. How could Council and staff somehow have missed the ongoing resident concern about over-developing lots with the mega house excessive building footprints. Some of the current Council members even committed to remedy this if elected, but didn’t.
The September 2022 Infill Strategy Report states that “based on Council direction”, the types of infill housing that have been considered in Oak Bay’s single-family neighbourhoods are most forms of infill development.
In light of this it seems to us that the promised mailout explaining Council’s intention to densify Oak Bay’s neighbourhoods with duplexes, triplexes, town-houses. large lot subdivisions, heritage conversion, and detached suites, should have happened by now, and well before the October 15, 2022 civic election.
And certainly this densification information should have been provided well before any small-sample infill survey and its findings that claim “this is what most residents want” were published.
We were also puzzled about selecting the limited-space municipal hall, Council chambers for the important zoning change, at the September 8, 2022 Secondary Suite Public Meeting. Even then the number of residents and other participants allowed to attend was restricted to just over a dozen. In contrast resident groups held two well attended All Candidate Meetings in much large halls, within the following 21 days.
Do Council, staff and their infill consultants really expect the majority of Oak Bay residents to believe what Councils Infill Strategy Report spells out? That:
The Infill Strategy Report’s Appendices provide a number of observations that mitigate these serious impacts. However, not a shred of evidence is provided to support what are, basically, assumptions. Unfortunately, the consultants won’t be around to deal with the fallout.
This infill densification initiative is not about Council’s ability to approve multi-family dwellings or infill development in Oak Bay’s single-family neighbourhoods. Council already has the ability to approve multi-plexes, stratification of duplexes, subdivision of large lots for new single-family homes and secondary suites. They have done so on a number of occasions. What this is about is:
Why else would Council conduct zoning change surveys ahead of proving the details of what is involved and what the impacts are. Why else would Council combine most of Oak Bay resident survey input with the input of stakeholders, developers and a minority of residents. All of which would gain substantially from excessive infill in single-family neighbourhood developments.
Then make a claim this is what most people want, and then call all of this transparency.
-------------------------------------------
“Nothing is inevitable if you are paying attention” Oak Bay Watch
Oak Bay Watch is a volunteer community association and its members have a variety of professional backgrounds in both the public and private sector.
*******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
The Oak Bay News Reported the annoucement of the new Uplands Residents associaltion:
"Marilyn Palmer, speaking as president of the new association, told council that many residents of her neighbourhood were not aware of the consultation efforts and don’t feel the conclusions are reliable.
“We are not feeling at all confident the information that’s being brought forward is truly representative of the people in our neighbourhood,” she said.
Palmer asked that there be additional consultation with the neighbourhood.
Mayor Kevin Murdoch said, “Every household in Oak Bay got notification. We did everything we could in our power to raise awareness,”. He added. "it’s not unusual for things to be missed."
Note: The Mayor’s statement that “Every household in Oak Bay got notification....to rise awareness”, is only partially true. The highly criticized Infill Survey, pop up booths and information fairs received plenty of notice but, much of the detailed information in the Infill Strategy Report, the survey findings and certainly Council’s intent, did not.
Appendix #2
The following information, above all the other information in the Infill Strategy Report, discredits the report and the survey.
Note: This newsletter is 3 pages long, plus 2 appendices – However, it will save plowing through the District’s 240 page Infill Strategy Report. The Report indicates the type of infill development Council is planning for neighbourhoods and is available on the District website- see September Council Meeting Agenda Item 9.1.
The latest Infill 240-page Infill Strategy Report Is a very dangerous document. It is biased, needlessly long, and provides misleading information. It is also complicated, confusing and therefore very difficult to understand. Nevertheless, based on staff’s recommendation, it was endorsed by Council at their final Council meeting on September 26, 2022
The last time Council faced the community with a residential infill strategy that included an imposing, character-changing, environmentally damaging, zoning change, was at two standing room only meetings at UVIC on September the 10, 2016. At the meetings there was no mistaking that residents rejected the strategy out of hand. At another standing room only open Council meeting at the Monterey Recreation Centre in 2010, a zoning change to permit secondary suites received a similar resident rejection.
Since those meetings, previous and the present Oak Bay Councils have bided their time. It appeared they had learned their lesson well. This Council realized that it’s no use facing the public about densifying Oak Bays single-family neighbourhoods with every form of Infill development. Council, aided by the Pandemic, has all but shut down face-to-face-public engagement. Alternately. Council and Staff have carefully and expensively manipulated the secondary suite and Infill zoning change processes to make it appear that this is what residents want.
Council and Staff have accomplished this by tactfully:
- Addressing secondary suites, by definition infill development, separately from all the other forms of infill development.
- Withholding the Consultant’s December 2020 Secondary Suite report until mid-2021. The Report included: “Reasons given for opposing secondary suites: The Increased density would decrease the quality of life in Oak Bay. There would be increased noise, traffic and parking. The extra costs of municipal services would not be shared equitably. There would be additional burdens on the municipal infrastructure”.
- The District, with the secondary suite process well on the way without public input, started their single-family neighbourhood infill densification strategy process. This included the full range of all the other forms of infill development: duplexes, garden suites, triplexes, sub-division of larger lots that can be subdivided to allow new single detached homes etc.
- Conducted two highly-criticized secondary suite and infill surveys of questionable integrity. The Surveys’ reported findings included: infill supported input from pop-up booths, walk-abouts, and design fairs. However, there is no way this data can be confirmed. Note: The District however, did consider it appropriate to hold a series of face-to-face tax dollar funded, Oak Bay densification workshops with selected non-resident stakeholders. The sessions included - a Local Designer/ Builder Focus Group, Housing Advocacy Organizations and Student Leaders from UVIC. The input from these Stakeholders, who would benefit from this type of infill densification, was used in the report as support for infill development.
The Infill Strategy Report is filled with suspect resident approval findings. For example, its findings state there is a “high level of support” for its guiding principles and directions:
• Provide Diverse Housing Options
• Support Ease of Implementation
• Cherish What the Community Loves
And it goes on to say, “the survey results show that about seven in ten of respondents strongly or somewhat favoured these principles demonstrating a clear support for these principles.”
The “principles” however, although implied, do not necessarily support all types of infill or secondary suite development. Resident support could mean residents would be willing to endorse other more acceptable, and controllable, forms of single-family development e.g. townhouses, heritage conversions. This is more likely given the impacts - (see Oak Bay Watch Perspective for more information).
Faced with all this, it’s easy to understand why Uplands has recently formed the Uplands Neighbourhood Association and announced it at the September 26, 2022 Council meeting. They requested, most likely about their concern with the 240 page Infill Strategy Report's information, that Council provide additional consultation with the Uplands Neighbourhood on Council’s Infill Housing Strategy. (See Appendix #1 for Upland’s residents concerns)
Unfortunately, they may not be aware that council’s record for listening to resident groups, for the most part, has been less than stellar.
Oak Bay Watch Perspective
The Infill Strategy Report’s (Pages 6,7 of 240) biggest bombshell is:
“Round 3: ( Survey responses show support for this proposed (zoning) change at 74%.” (Please see more important information and full details in Appendix #2)
Proposed Zoning Change:
• reductions in side yard, front yard, and rear yard setbacks;
• increases to permitted FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
• greater lot coverage and,
• increasing the percentage of permitted paved area.
This information, above all else, demonstrates just how completely out of touch Council, staff and the consultants are with the majority of Oak Bay residents’ number #1 priority and concern - overdevelopment. Residents are concerned that this has impacted, and will continue to impact climate change, damage the environment, stress the infrastructure and result in so much more tree loss.
Their concerns have been indicated in: resident survey after resident survey; many many submissions to Councils over the years; resident standing room only meetings with Councils and numerous letters to editors. How could Council and staff somehow have missed the ongoing resident concern about over-developing lots with the mega house excessive building footprints. Some of the current Council members even committed to remedy this if elected, but didn’t.
The September 2022 Infill Strategy Report states that “based on Council direction”, the types of infill housing that have been considered in Oak Bay’s single-family neighbourhoods are most forms of infill development.
In light of this it seems to us that the promised mailout explaining Council’s intention to densify Oak Bay’s neighbourhoods with duplexes, triplexes, town-houses. large lot subdivisions, heritage conversion, and detached suites, should have happened by now, and well before the October 15, 2022 civic election.
And certainly this densification information should have been provided well before any small-sample infill survey and its findings that claim “this is what most residents want” were published.
We were also puzzled about selecting the limited-space municipal hall, Council chambers for the important zoning change, at the September 8, 2022 Secondary Suite Public Meeting. Even then the number of residents and other participants allowed to attend was restricted to just over a dozen. In contrast resident groups held two well attended All Candidate Meetings in much large halls, within the following 21 days.
Do Council, staff and their infill consultants really expect the majority of Oak Bay residents to believe what Councils Infill Strategy Report spells out? That:
- Existing residents are prepared to accept much more environmental damage and tree loss.
- Existing residents are eagerly awaiting the possibility they will lose their privacy, sunlight and views.
- Existing residents are willing to increase their property taxes to provide the revenue for the municipal service increases that secondary suites and other non-taxable forms of infill will require.
- Existing residents are happy that Oak Bay will have more commuter traffic. Its streets will be lined with many more cars and trucks or, homes with infill will require them to be parked off-site but, not out of sight. The Infill Strategy Report calls this a “tradeoff” but does not explain that it is between two undesirable, character-changing outcomes.
- Existing residents accept the Infill Strategy Report’s conclusion that so much more runoff, sewerage, and water usage will not impact Oak Bay’s infrastructure that is already stressed and failing.
The Infill Strategy Report’s Appendices provide a number of observations that mitigate these serious impacts. However, not a shred of evidence is provided to support what are, basically, assumptions. Unfortunately, the consultants won’t be around to deal with the fallout.
This infill densification initiative is not about Council’s ability to approve multi-family dwellings or infill development in Oak Bay’s single-family neighbourhoods. Council already has the ability to approve multi-plexes, stratification of duplexes, subdivision of large lots for new single-family homes and secondary suites. They have done so on a number of occasions. What this is about is:
- Removing the requirement for public input when infill and multi-plex development applications are submitted and,
- Enabling this excessive densification on a large scale.
Why else would Council conduct zoning change surveys ahead of proving the details of what is involved and what the impacts are. Why else would Council combine most of Oak Bay resident survey input with the input of stakeholders, developers and a minority of residents. All of which would gain substantially from excessive infill in single-family neighbourhood developments.
Then make a claim this is what most people want, and then call all of this transparency.
-------------------------------------------
“Nothing is inevitable if you are paying attention” Oak Bay Watch
Oak Bay Watch is a volunteer community association and its members have a variety of professional backgrounds in both the public and private sector.
*******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
The Oak Bay News Reported the annoucement of the new Uplands Residents associaltion:
"Marilyn Palmer, speaking as president of the new association, told council that many residents of her neighbourhood were not aware of the consultation efforts and don’t feel the conclusions are reliable.
“We are not feeling at all confident the information that’s being brought forward is truly representative of the people in our neighbourhood,” she said.
Palmer asked that there be additional consultation with the neighbourhood.
Mayor Kevin Murdoch said, “Every household in Oak Bay got notification. We did everything we could in our power to raise awareness,”. He added. "it’s not unusual for things to be missed."
Note: The Mayor’s statement that “Every household in Oak Bay got notification....to rise awareness”, is only partially true. The highly criticized Infill Survey, pop up booths and information fairs received plenty of notice but, much of the detailed information in the Infill Strategy Report, the survey findings and certainly Council’s intent, did not.
Appendix #2
The following information, above all the other information in the Infill Strategy Report, discredits the report and the survey.
- The fact that Council, Staff and the Consultant managed to ignore so many public protests and complaints to the District over the years regarding overbuilding of lots,
- Page #1 Executive Summary “In general, the survey results show community support for Infill Housing and the Guiding Principles and Key Directions …. The results of the survey can be used to inform the drafting of the detailed bylaw and policy changes that would be needed for Infill Housing.”
- The fact that some existing Council members admitted, on more than one occasion, along with a member of the 2014 Floor Area Review Committee, that the 2007 and 2014 zoning changes allowed far too much lot coverage. The evidence of this can be seen on most steetscapes in Oak Bay.
- Infill Housing Strategy – Round 3 Engagement Summary and Next Steps – September 26, 2022. “Round 3 survey responses show support for this proposed change at 74%.” This means that Council is claiming three out of four Infill Survey respondents, on top of Oak Bay’s already excessive developer friendly zoning want to: Reduce front yard setbacks, allow greater floor area and more lot coverage, and this is in addition to reducing all setbacks.