Nesletter Sept 20, 2020 Spculaters & Developers Influence Do Speculators and Developers Have Too Much Influence on Council’s Zoning Decisions?
Part #1
First off, developers have much more access and personal contact with staff than residents. The District’s staff regularly meet with developers to discuss their proposals. Planning staff also attend organized developer and real estate lobbyist* meetings and luncheons, mix with and converse with the membership, make associations, and listen to their lectures and presentations. In short, staff are exposed to the strategies and the sophisticated ways the Development Community uses to deal with resident opposition and in order maximize their business interests.
* Note: Oak Bay is a paid-up member of the above indicated lobbying organization, the Urban Development Institute (UDI). The Director of Building and Planning, is the District’s primary member. The Planning Department has recommended, and had Council approve UDI member organizations for densification consultant contracts. If UDI considers their business interests and development objectives may be affected by the passing of a bylaw, it is common for this organization to provide drafting assistance to municipalities.
This developer/ resident disparity could not have been more noticeable than in the interaction between the District Staff and Community members during the United Church Development Proposal Process. Report after report from neighbourhood members explained the inadequacy of the information provided about this development and how their viewpoints received little attention. The Community members had to resort to freedom of information requests for information that should have been readily available.
The District’s Advisory Planning Commission (APC), that the community fought so hard to establish, also is allowed to hear the “merits” of developments directly from the developers well ahead of the general public. The public cannot provide submissions to or speak at Advisory Planning Commission Meetings.
Many of the APC members who were appointed by the previous Councils are employed directly or indirectly by the development and real-estate industry. Other Commission members, employed by housing-related government and private agencies, have held workshops for Commission members. They advocate for their employer’s mandate for densification and infill development in Oak Bay’s single-family neighbourhoods. It’s no wonder the Commission did not come close to representing the general Community’s points-of-view to Council on development and other land use issues.
At Council meetings the developer also has the funds and resources to provide one-sided, sophisticated presentations at length and is given the opportunity to rebut resident input and then to have the last word.
This “unbalanced” developer advantage was compounded by the obvious pro-densification and development agendas of the majority on the last two Councils. This resulted in a definitive change of leadership in 2018. However, the Planning Department staff and many of the land use goals and objectives of the last Council, survived the election. Perhaps this is why there has been no noticeable difference in development practices and approvals.
Part #2
The Problem
In 2007 Oak Bay’s highly respected Zoning Bylaw was tampered with. Ostensibly this zoning change was to prevent big box house development from becoming routine: a concern many residents then and now considered unacceptable.
In 2010, as Councillors Ney and Braithwaite will remember the Director of Building and Planning informed Council that there was a “lack of consistency in the Zoning Bylaw and his Department had received many resident complaints about the size of the houses that were being built. This was a direct result of the Zoning change.
Councillors Ney and Braithwaite will also remember the packed municipal hall meetings in 2010, attended by residents who demanded that the Zoning be corrected.
Today, a decade later there is no zoning correction in sight, houses continue to be built that are even bigger and certainly too big for the lots they occupy. This is not only harming streetscapes and affecting neighbouring properties it is seriously impacting the District’s fragile infrastructure.
The most recent massive water main break near Lafayette Park in South Oak Bay is the latest case in point. The District is spending 1/3 of its infrastructure budget fixing leaking and infrastructure breaks, yet the impacts of these excessive developments on the infrastructure are a big part of the problem.
However, nothing has been learned – clear cutting of the urban forest is allowed to make way for over-built houses that are going up all over Oak Bay. Council is ignoring the research that has indicated that 100 mature trees intercept approximately 100,000 gallons of rainfall per year and for every 5 percent of tree cover added to a community, storm water runoff is reduced by approximately 2 percent. (see http:// urbanforestrynetwork.org/benefits/water)
Trees – our natural infrastructure assets are far cheaper than spending so many tax dollars on storm water runoff infrastructure and maintenance. Plus, trees, vegetation and the natural soil add the many other benefits at no charge (see Appendix #1).
So why is Oak Bay routinely destroying its urban forest? The District now has a Director of Building and Planning, a Manager of Planning and a Planner. They routinely, not only recommend overbuilt houses, but as well recommend additional, square footage variances. These are on top of the mistaken, far-too-liberal but allowable square footage. Groves of mature trees have been removed to make way for over-builds and subdivisions.
Added to this are the limited setbacks, the expanded size of garages, ancillary buildings and new impervious surfaces (paving) leaving little space for trees and vegetation. Residents are expected to believe that the limited space left is adequate for a few replacement saplings to reach maturity years from now. However, more often than not when fully grown, there is not enough space for the saplings to reach anywhere near the maturity of the original trees (see pictures Appendix #2).
OAK BAY WATCH PERSPECTIVE
The District approved 235 building permits in 2019 and it is not known how many trees were lost, how much vegetation and natural soil removed and paving surfaces added. However, there is no doubt that many of these permits were new builds. We have noticed that many of these are far larger than most of our existing homes. It is a safe bet that the collective loss of these natural assets and the impacts on our infrastructure are why residents are so concerned.
As one resident who wrote to us remarked, regarding the development impacts on our infrastructure, “it's like seeing your tax dollars go down the drain”
However, it would appear from the lack of action and the process that set the District’s initiatives, only very minor improvements are being implemented. These will not address the root cause of Oak Bay’s over-development, and any future over-densification problem and the permanent loss of Oak Bay's Character and Heritage.
In the meantime, our natural urban forest infrastructure assets are being systematically destroyed. Preventing this has been a constant resident message to Council who continue to request the public to engage as an alternative to the residents' solution to solve the problem. Engagements are intended to mean that a much bigger step is promised in the future. To one of the engaged parties (residents) a decade seems a long time to wait for this positive outcome.
Tree and Heritage symposium presenters constantly provide the same messages this newsletter provides. Why then has Council not recognized that a return to moderate, proportionate development zoning rules is the solution:
Moderate proportionate development that allows for gardens and trees is the hallmark of Oak Bay. Destroying and eroding this will, as one columnist recently put it, will result in our community becoming “another identity-less, urban nowhere”.
See Appendix #1 & #2 Appendix Pictures Below
*******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 psychological impact of trees on people’s moods, emotions and enjoyment of their surroundings may in fact be one of the greatest benefits urban forests provide. One large tree can provide a day’s oxygen for up to four people. You need about 500 full-sized trees to absorb the carbon dioxide produced by a typical car driven 20,000 km/year.
Tree Benefits – Tree Canada treecanada.ca/resources/benefits-of-trees/
Victoria: https://lisahelpsvictoria.ca/2019/02/09/natural-assets-and-infrastructure-services-why-trees-matter
“Today, for example, we have the numbers and evidence to show that it is smarter and cheaper, by orders of magnitude, to invest in maintaining and expanding green infrastructure, such as forests, urban parks and stormwater ponds, than to design, build and manage engineered stormwater infrastructure.”
Capitol Regional District Information Sheet: https://www.crd.bc.ca/education/stormwater
surfaces or impervious surfaces — roads, roofs, parking lots, sidewalks and
paved driveways — prevent rainwater from passing into the soil below. The
increase in impervious surfaces results in much higher surface runoff into our
storm water system and causes flooding, erosion, pollution and degradation
of habitat.
Trees Increase Water Retention and Quality
Trees have been shown to influence the flow of water. Trees reduce top-soil erosion by catching precipitation with their leaf canopies. This lessens the force of storms and slows down water runoff which in turn ensures that our groundwater supplies are continually being replenished.Along with breaking the fall of rainwater, tree roots remove nutrients that are harmful to water ecology and quality. Leaves that have fallen from the trees and begun to decay form an organic layer that allows water to percolate into the soil which also aids in the reduction of runoff and soil erosion. All of this also helps reduce street flooding and sedimentation in streams.
Appendix #2
Part #1
First off, developers have much more access and personal contact with staff than residents. The District’s staff regularly meet with developers to discuss their proposals. Planning staff also attend organized developer and real estate lobbyist* meetings and luncheons, mix with and converse with the membership, make associations, and listen to their lectures and presentations. In short, staff are exposed to the strategies and the sophisticated ways the Development Community uses to deal with resident opposition and in order maximize their business interests.
* Note: Oak Bay is a paid-up member of the above indicated lobbying organization, the Urban Development Institute (UDI). The Director of Building and Planning, is the District’s primary member. The Planning Department has recommended, and had Council approve UDI member organizations for densification consultant contracts. If UDI considers their business interests and development objectives may be affected by the passing of a bylaw, it is common for this organization to provide drafting assistance to municipalities.
This developer/ resident disparity could not have been more noticeable than in the interaction between the District Staff and Community members during the United Church Development Proposal Process. Report after report from neighbourhood members explained the inadequacy of the information provided about this development and how their viewpoints received little attention. The Community members had to resort to freedom of information requests for information that should have been readily available.
The District’s Advisory Planning Commission (APC), that the community fought so hard to establish, also is allowed to hear the “merits” of developments directly from the developers well ahead of the general public. The public cannot provide submissions to or speak at Advisory Planning Commission Meetings.
Many of the APC members who were appointed by the previous Councils are employed directly or indirectly by the development and real-estate industry. Other Commission members, employed by housing-related government and private agencies, have held workshops for Commission members. They advocate for their employer’s mandate for densification and infill development in Oak Bay’s single-family neighbourhoods. It’s no wonder the Commission did not come close to representing the general Community’s points-of-view to Council on development and other land use issues.
At Council meetings the developer also has the funds and resources to provide one-sided, sophisticated presentations at length and is given the opportunity to rebut resident input and then to have the last word.
This “unbalanced” developer advantage was compounded by the obvious pro-densification and development agendas of the majority on the last two Councils. This resulted in a definitive change of leadership in 2018. However, the Planning Department staff and many of the land use goals and objectives of the last Council, survived the election. Perhaps this is why there has been no noticeable difference in development practices and approvals.
Part #2
The Problem
In 2007 Oak Bay’s highly respected Zoning Bylaw was tampered with. Ostensibly this zoning change was to prevent big box house development from becoming routine: a concern many residents then and now considered unacceptable.
In 2010, as Councillors Ney and Braithwaite will remember the Director of Building and Planning informed Council that there was a “lack of consistency in the Zoning Bylaw and his Department had received many resident complaints about the size of the houses that were being built. This was a direct result of the Zoning change.
Councillors Ney and Braithwaite will also remember the packed municipal hall meetings in 2010, attended by residents who demanded that the Zoning be corrected.
Today, a decade later there is no zoning correction in sight, houses continue to be built that are even bigger and certainly too big for the lots they occupy. This is not only harming streetscapes and affecting neighbouring properties it is seriously impacting the District’s fragile infrastructure.
The most recent massive water main break near Lafayette Park in South Oak Bay is the latest case in point. The District is spending 1/3 of its infrastructure budget fixing leaking and infrastructure breaks, yet the impacts of these excessive developments on the infrastructure are a big part of the problem.
However, nothing has been learned – clear cutting of the urban forest is allowed to make way for over-built houses that are going up all over Oak Bay. Council is ignoring the research that has indicated that 100 mature trees intercept approximately 100,000 gallons of rainfall per year and for every 5 percent of tree cover added to a community, storm water runoff is reduced by approximately 2 percent. (see http:// urbanforestrynetwork.org/benefits/water)
Trees – our natural infrastructure assets are far cheaper than spending so many tax dollars on storm water runoff infrastructure and maintenance. Plus, trees, vegetation and the natural soil add the many other benefits at no charge (see Appendix #1).
So why is Oak Bay routinely destroying its urban forest? The District now has a Director of Building and Planning, a Manager of Planning and a Planner. They routinely, not only recommend overbuilt houses, but as well recommend additional, square footage variances. These are on top of the mistaken, far-too-liberal but allowable square footage. Groves of mature trees have been removed to make way for over-builds and subdivisions.
Added to this are the limited setbacks, the expanded size of garages, ancillary buildings and new impervious surfaces (paving) leaving little space for trees and vegetation. Residents are expected to believe that the limited space left is adequate for a few replacement saplings to reach maturity years from now. However, more often than not when fully grown, there is not enough space for the saplings to reach anywhere near the maturity of the original trees (see pictures Appendix #2).
OAK BAY WATCH PERSPECTIVE
The District approved 235 building permits in 2019 and it is not known how many trees were lost, how much vegetation and natural soil removed and paving surfaces added. However, there is no doubt that many of these permits were new builds. We have noticed that many of these are far larger than most of our existing homes. It is a safe bet that the collective loss of these natural assets and the impacts on our infrastructure are why residents are so concerned.
As one resident who wrote to us remarked, regarding the development impacts on our infrastructure, “it's like seeing your tax dollars go down the drain”
However, it would appear from the lack of action and the process that set the District’s initiatives, only very minor improvements are being implemented. These will not address the root cause of Oak Bay’s over-development, and any future over-densification problem and the permanent loss of Oak Bay's Character and Heritage.
In the meantime, our natural urban forest infrastructure assets are being systematically destroyed. Preventing this has been a constant resident message to Council who continue to request the public to engage as an alternative to the residents' solution to solve the problem. Engagements are intended to mean that a much bigger step is promised in the future. To one of the engaged parties (residents) a decade seems a long time to wait for this positive outcome.
Tree and Heritage symposium presenters constantly provide the same messages this newsletter provides. Why then has Council not recognized that a return to moderate, proportionate development zoning rules is the solution:
- Housing will be more affordable while still providing developers and speculators with a healthy profit,
- Space would be provided for gardens, trees, vegetation and natural soil retention.
- Our natural assets would be protected.
- Most of the existing mature trees would be saved to continue to provide the proven benefits.
- Infill could be built where space is available so these types of developments do not have to encroach on the quiet enjoyment of neighbours.
- Although it will mean more cars, a reasonable amount of development could occur in village areas – This acceptable alternative is not a priority for the Planning Department to date.
- All this would mean Oak Bay’s collective heritage would be protected.
Moderate proportionate development that allows for gardens and trees is the hallmark of Oak Bay. Destroying and eroding this will, as one columnist recently put it, will result in our community becoming “another identity-less, urban nowhere”.
See Appendix #1 & #2 Appendix Pictures Below
*******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 psychological impact of trees on people’s moods, emotions and enjoyment of their surroundings may in fact be one of the greatest benefits urban forests provide. One large tree can provide a day’s oxygen for up to four people. You need about 500 full-sized trees to absorb the carbon dioxide produced by a typical car driven 20,000 km/year.
Tree Benefits – Tree Canada treecanada.ca/resources/benefits-of-trees/
Victoria: https://lisahelpsvictoria.ca/2019/02/09/natural-assets-and-infrastructure-services-why-trees-matter
“Today, for example, we have the numbers and evidence to show that it is smarter and cheaper, by orders of magnitude, to invest in maintaining and expanding green infrastructure, such as forests, urban parks and stormwater ponds, than to design, build and manage engineered stormwater infrastructure.”
Capitol Regional District Information Sheet: https://www.crd.bc.ca/education/stormwater
- Vegetation Removal: Reduces natural infiltration rainwater
- Reduce the amount of water going into your storm drain.
- Reduce impervious paving with grass, gravel or other permeable options
surfaces or impervious surfaces — roads, roofs, parking lots, sidewalks and
paved driveways — prevent rainwater from passing into the soil below. The
increase in impervious surfaces results in much higher surface runoff into our
storm water system and causes flooding, erosion, pollution and degradation
of habitat.
- Reduce the amount of water going into your storm drain.
- Reduce impervious paving with grass, gravel or other permeable options
Trees Increase Water Retention and Quality
Trees have been shown to influence the flow of water. Trees reduce top-soil erosion by catching precipitation with their leaf canopies. This lessens the force of storms and slows down water runoff which in turn ensures that our groundwater supplies are continually being replenished.Along with breaking the fall of rainwater, tree roots remove nutrients that are harmful to water ecology and quality. Leaves that have fallen from the trees and begun to decay form an organic layer that allows water to percolate into the soil which also aids in the reduction of runoff and soil erosion. All of this also helps reduce street flooding and sedimentation in streams.
Appendix #2