Conflict of Interest - April 1, 2019

To:  Mayor and Councillors, Oak Bay Council and Mr. B. Anderson, Planning Department; Chief Administrative Officer; Director of Corporate Services

Re:  Advisory Planning Commission membership and Conflict of Interest Z0N00034/DP000022

On 14 August 2018 the attached letter was sent to Mayor and Council.  The topic was perceived conflict of interest when Virginia Holden, a member of the Advisory Planning Commission, gave a ‘workshop’ on affordable housing to the Commission at its July 3 2018 meeting. She gave this workshop in her role as Director of Housing Policy in the Housing Policy Branch of the B.C. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
Incidentally, the minutes of this meeting were not posted on Oak Bay’s Municipal website until  Friday  29 March 2019 after we alerted Municipal Hall that the minutes had never been posted, although they were adopted at a meeting on February 5 2019.

In response to our letter of 14 August 2018, we received replies from then-councillors Murdoch and Green who acknowledged that this was something to be watched, which we have done.  (Copies of their replies have been included at the end of this email.) 

For the past year and more, we have been submitting Freedom of Information requests to BC Housing concerning the proposed Oak Bay United Church development. The following disclosure is from our Freedom of Information request 292-30-13218.

It appears that Ms. Holden and BC Housing are collaborating on the OBUC development project. Based on the correspondence included in the FOI, it appears she has had private meetings and discussions with BC Housing on this topic. 

On 4 November 2018 she wrote to Malcolm McNaughton and Armin Amrolia of BC Housing – “Thanks for taking the time to meet with me on Friday. It was great to see you both and appreciate your willingness and flexibility for me to work with your team. Overall, I am interested to start something with BC Housing in the new year in some shape or form.  In terms of Oak Bay United, (redacted) I just want to understand what the possibilities are….I walked through the neighbourhood around the OB church yesterday to get a better sense of the neighbours` concerns more clearly.”

On 8 November 2018, she wrote “I met with the Chair of the Oak Bay planning commission as well as the other members on Tuesday (redacted) I would just need to step out of deliberations any time that the project is discussed or reviewed. This is common practice whenever there is a perceived conflict of interest to the project under discussion. Given this decision, I would be interested working with BC Housing”.
(We should point out that all of the grammatical errors are hers – we have merely copied her correspondence.)
Our FOI ran from October 5 to November 8, 2018, so unfortunately we do not have any further information to convey, although we are waiting momentarily for the next one. However, we firmly believe there is enough in what we have received to date to be very concerned.

We understand that Ms. Holden was taking a leave of absence from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing so she could look after her children – she stated this at the July 3 2018 meeting of the APC. We don`t know what has transpired since in terms of her employment, but t certainly appears that she has been seeking a contract with BC Housing since then.

We entirely appreciate that it is common practice when confronted with a perceived or real conflict of interest to recuse oneself from any discussions or deliberations that concern an issue at hand – and, to her credit, Ms. Holden does seem to recognize this. However, when someone declares a conflict they are obliged NOT to discuss anything about a proposed project with those who are involved in providing advice or making a recommendation on a proposal. We have no way of knowing what information or views she has shared with other members of the APC about the OBUC project, although we know she met with them to discuss her situation. This is unusual – it should not have required a meeting, she should have immediately recognized she had a conflict – and that SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE END OF ANY DISCUSSION with any members of the APC.  Of course, unless she understands this (and why should we think she does understand this) her continued presence as a member of the APC provides her with ample opportunities for side-bar chats with other members. To say the least, this whole situation is very worrisome.

It is entirely inadequate that she only proposes to recuse herself from public discussions on the OBUC project when she has already spoken to the members privately and appears to be acting as a paid agent of BC Housing and the developer. This is something that needs to be investigated as quickly as possible.
During the recent municipal election, you, as our mayor and council, promised more transparency. We feel you should be aware of this significant information and urge you to take immediate appropriate action so that this submission is judged fairly and independently by the commission and by council. 

Concerned Citizens Network Oak Bay https://ccn-oakbay.com

On behalf of Concerned Citizens Network of Oak Bay:   Wayne Todd, Maggie Bolitho, Barbara Judson, Catherine Griffiths, Diana Butler, Wayne Randall, Alan Bolitho, Garen Kassabian, Curtis Hobson, Matt Stooke.  Citizens of Oak Bay. 

Note: a copy of the original text in the FOI report is available upon request.

pexels-photo-1527255.jpeg

Letter sent to Mayor and Council on August 14 2018 from a concerned citizen, Concerned Citizens Network Oak Bay

At the July 3 2018 meeting of the District of Oak Bay Advisory Planning Commission, committee member Virginia Holden, who is also Director of Housing Policy in the Housing Policy Branch of the B.C. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, gave a presentation to committee members on housing affordability. Some local citizens who attended this meeting as observers and took notes felt that this was clearly a sales-pitch for the contentious OBUC affordable housing project. She stressed the need to identify and help non-profit sites that need redevelopment. She described now as a time when "the stars have aligned" and wanted other members of committee to know what a perfect time it was for non-profits, among others, to take advantage of all the affordable housing funding available from BC Housing, the Community Housing Fund, the Federal Government, CRD, and how Density-bonusing is being promoted with municipalities, including exemptions from property taxes for 10 years for those developers. She spoke about municipalities being encouraged to streamline and hasten the process of rezoning applications for these developers. She plans to give part II of the presentation to committee members at the next meeting in September.  It sounds as if  BC Housing is giving advice to developers on how to speed their developments through local councils without having to go through due-process.
As part of the Advisory Planning Commission’s mandate is “To advise Council on matters respecting land use, community planning, or proposed bylaws and certain permits under Part 26 of the Local Government Act. And Official Community Plan amendment applications, rezoning applications and land use contract amendments to ensure proposed developments comply with the policies and objectives of the Official Community Plan”  might I suggest that there is a conflict of interest in Ms. Holden’s dual roles as Director of Housing Policy in the Policy Branch of BC Housing and a member of the Advisory Planning Commission who will be advising Council on the Oak Bay United Church/BC Housing’s massive mixed income building project.   The OBUC has already appeared before council asking that their project be streamlined and expedited (which failed).   I hope that Ms. Holden’s planned part II in September will be reconsidered.  It is clearly inappropriate.
Responses received to the above letter
From Kevin Murdoch

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Conflict of interest is important to keep an eye on. By my assessment, there is probably no "actionable" issue here, but rather something for a mayor to talk to members about directly.  In general, conflict of interest is self-declared. In areas where there is no clear, direct financial benefit to someone by their actions, it is a judgement call by the individual. For elected officials it's a bit more of an issue, as we are held accountable every few years by the electorate, so perceived conflict of interest has as much weight as technical / direct.  
The other factor here is that the Advisory Planning Commission (APC) is an advisory body only - they don't make any decisions. As such, their exposure to conflict of interest is quite low.
Of course, the members are allowed to have opinions (even strong opinions). Most problems with APCs come generally where they are seen to be advocating for a particular development, particularly before it comes before them formally with staff input. That, again, should be fairly blatant to action. In the end, Council will very rarely remove a member, but issues around performance come up when Council (annually) determines whether to renew their membership on the committees or commissions.

Kind Regards,
Kevin 

From: Cairine Green [mailto:oakbay@cairinegreen.ca]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 4:05 PM
To: Barbara Judson
Subject: Re: Perceived conflict of interest Advisory Planning Commision

Barbara, many thanks for your email message.  
Having been a Councillor in two communities, North Saanich and Oak Bay, and as a current volunteer Commission member in Oak Bay (Heritage Commission), my experience has taught me that every volunteer Commission member must always be careful about real or perceived conflicts of interest when serving the municipality and the public.  As you know, Commission members are not only volunteers but also agents of the Municipality, given that Mayor and Council ratify volunteer appointments.  
Commissions have a more formal mandate, unlike committees, task forces or working groups. Commissions are standing committees, are created through a bylaw and, therefore, have a unique relationship with Mayor and Council because of their role and responsibility in making decisions on specific referrals from Council that are later brought back to Council as recommendations for Council’s final decision.
I have found through many years of volunteering and as an elected official, that conflict of interest can be a concept not always well understood.  In the case of municipal government, elected Council members are reminded of conflict of interest from time to time but the final decision about whether or not the member may be in conflict rests with the individual Councillor.  That being said, it’s always good practice to obtain independent legal advice if there is any doubt.  The best advice I had was that if one thinks or feels they might have a conflict, then they probably do and should always err on the side of caution.
You may be interested in a precedent-setting case from North Saanich in 2005, on Conflict of Interest, Godfrey vs. Bird, where a North Saanich Councillor, Bill Bird, was disqualified from holding office.  A group of 10 concerned citizens took Mr. Bird to Court and won. There is a real lesson here for anyone elected to local government, given that the majority of decisions made are about land use.
The best advice that I can give you in this case is to share your concerns with Mayor and Council and with senior staff.  Thanks for getting in touch with me.

***

All of the above is a great concern, exacerbated by the erratic schedule of this Commission as reported here:
https://www.bclocalnews.com/news/oak-bays-advisory-planning-commission-cancelled-again/

competition-dispute-fight-37323.jpg

If it's not viable, who will be liable?

To Oak Bay Planning Dept., Mayor and Council Copy Acting Chief Administrative Office

13 March 2019

Re: OBUC project ZON00034, DP000022

No Viability, just Liability

The dictionary defines viability, in the commercial sense, as the ability of a business product or service to make a profit.  This is certainly the definition intended when used by this  developer as the principal purpose of their project is to make enough money/profit  to keep the church going for the next hundred years. This amount has never been disclosed.  

The first time ‘viability’ appears is March 2017 when the church’s website describes meeting with BC Housing with ‘a financial model to estimate potential viability and risk to satisfy the church board and shown to BC Housing to secure a project planning loan’.  Our Freedom of information reports had the dollar amount to ensure viability redacted.    Viability (or amount of profit the developer needs to make) initially required a building  of 269 affordable units in a 6-storey L shaped tower, for BC Housing’s application for funding.  OK, said BC Housing.  The District of Oak Bay Planning staff  also were apparently “supportive of this project and the proposed development met the objectives of the local Planning Department” – again from a Freedom of information report obtained by neighbours .

From the beginning the terms ‘viability’ and ‘affordable housing’ went hand-in-hand, but with ever-changing definitions.  By March 2018 the 269 units of affordable housing morphed into 123 units of affordable housing and 14 market units.  By May 2018, there were 50 units of affordable housing and 46 market and long-term lease units.   Between March and May 2018, the name of the development changed from “Affordable Housing Project” to Neighbourhood Housing Initiative – with the word affordable no longer part of the description.

In an October 2018 submission to a Request for Proposals by the  BC Community Housing Fund, the developer applied for a grant based on using revenues from market units to subsidize the affordable units. The developer stated in this submission (available through FOI request 30-11318). “if grant support is not obtained or planning costs rise more units may have to be switched into being market units to safeguard breakeven.”  Also that “certain terms of the RFP conflict with the high cost of development in Oak Bay such that the level of grants and rental stipulations would prevent achieving breakeven”

In conclusion, the developer states “Due to the high cost of building in Oak Bay we unfortunately cannot meet the rental level requirements of the RFP since they would render the project unviable”.

Before proceeding further with the developer’s Rezoning Application, might I suggest that the Planning Department, Councillors and Mayor request confirmation of what the affordable rents for this project will be.  Based on the apparently new information that there is a “high cost of building in Oak Bay” and that “more units may have to be switched into being market units to safeguard breakeven” it seems that this could turn out to be a non-affordable development.

Photo from Pexel - photographer Juhasz Imre

Photo from Pexel - photographer Juhasz Imre

Thank you.  

B. Judson

A modest request

This letter simply asks that the OBUC-Development Team be required to comply with the requests made by the District of Oak Bay in January 2018:

March 2019 letter to Oak Bay_Page_1.jpeg

Just the facts please

Tonight’s email to BC Housing and the District of Oak Bay:

Recently the CCN received documents from BC Housing as the result of an FOI request. These included Oak Bay United Church – Development Team’s recent submission to Housing BC: Community Housing Fund requesting grant funds (RFP 1070-1819/016 Submission), and other correspondence.

These documents stated unequivocally that the OBUC project have support from a Member of the Legislative Assembly.

From FOI 30-11318:

The project is […] supported by our MLA, (page 11)

MLA Andrew Weaver has indicated support (page 25)

MLA Andrew Weaver supports the proposal (page 89)

When a member of the CCN asked Dr. Weaver about these assertions, he responded:

I am surprised that documentation would be submitted saying I was for any specific project in my riding. I am supportive of the general notion of building more affordable housing. It is inappropriate for me to single out a particular project to support or not support”

The need for affordable housing is not in question. The CCN is challenging the height, size and density of this design in our single-family neighbourhood. The lack of adequate parking and significantly increased traffic would have a major negative impact on our narrow neighbourhood streets.

Did the OBUC-DT hope to distract from these issues by falsely claiming an endorsement from a higher power? 

When significant misrepresentations have been made in parts of submissions, doesn’t it cast doubt over the integrity of the rest of the OBUC-DT’s statements?

M. Bolitho
Oak Bay

Book cover from www.writersresist.com - click on the image for more details about this book.

Book cover from www.writersresist.com - click on the image for more details about this book.

Protecting the urban forest,

An email to Oak Bay’s arborist and the Mayor & Council, February 13, 2019:

I don’t know if the Planning Department has forwarded to you the Oak Bay United Church's Landscape and Arborist Report for comment yet, but having read it in detail, I have a few questions:

A copy of the report is attached.  This was downloaded from the OBUC web site and is the same as provided by the District of Oak Bay as part of a FOI request.

  1. Many of the Garry Oaks, and other notable trees, will have buildings erected on their PRZ (Protected Root Zone, called ‘root zone’ in the bylaws).
    For example see trees 972, 973 & 974 near Granite St drive entrance and 958 & 959 near Mitchell St townhouses (Page 3 – Arborist’s report)

Have OBUC applied for a permit under bylaw 4326 to damage the protected trees?

I note that the definition of “damage” includes the follow:

(a) cut or tear the roots of a tree growing inside the root zone;

(b) place fill or organic waste, building materials, asphalt or a building or structure upon land inside the root zone;

(f) remove soil from land inside the root zone;

(g) blast inside the root zone of a tree or outside the root zone so as to damage roots or disturb soil inside the root zone;

Trees 967 & 968 (amongst others) will have blasting in their root zones to make way for the underground car park

The OBUC are very proud to state in their Rezoning Application that “only two notable trees will be removed” but how many will be ‘damaged’ by this project?  Do you, as the District Arborist, expect all the remaining tress to survive the blasting and construction?

2. I note that the OBUC are planning on planting two new Garry Oaks, on Mitchell St, only 1.5 to 2.5 metres (5’ to 8’) from the west wall of the church (See planting description # 9. Page 2 of landscape report). Do you think that it is a good idea to plant Garry Oaks this close to a building?

Damaged trees end up as firewood - photo from Pexel

Damaged trees end up as firewood - photo from Pexel

A. Bolitho

Oak Bay

On February 14th, the arborist Chris Paul replies - the fastest answer any of us have ever received from anyone connect with this project! Thank you Chris Paul.

Hello Alan

Yes I have seen the report you have included with your email.

Question 1

No permit has been applied for under bylaw 4326 at this point. Once a building is approved we issue permits for tree removal and any work that is outlined in the arborist report. Tree and root zone protection outlined in the arborist report and any other requirements I may add will be made part of the permit conditions and are to be followed throughout demolition and construction. There are several Garry oaks that are close to the proposed building location as you have mentioned and there may be some impact on their root zones. Actual root zones will vary with soil conditions so impacts cannot be determined 100% prior to excavation. Garry oaks are reasonably tolerant of construction and if the remaining root zone is properly protected the trees should survive the construction. Arborist involvement at the time of excavation as outlined in the report will help minimize root damage and preserve the remaining root zones.

Question 2

Planting Garry oaks 2-3 meters from a building is acceptable if there are adequate soil volumes for the trees to grow in as there is there between the sidewalk and the church. The oaks are fairly slow growing and on the west side of the building it will be a long time before they get very large. Oaks will quite regularly grow out from under other oaks and grow in one direction to reach light. Garry oaks are not likely to cause damage to the foundation.

 I hope that answers your questions.

 Chris Paul

The way it should be done T-C February 13, 2019

This letter raises an interesting question – what if polls revealed the underlying bias with which they were conducted? - From the Times Colonist.

You can read the original letter here and the editorial column it responds to here (the original column is mostly about political polling):

Questionable conclusions

February 12, 2019

To: Mayor and Council, Bruce Anderson, Director of Building and Planning—District of Oak Bay

I am very concerned about the conclusions of the Traffic Study and the Parking Study on the OBUC web site:

OBUC Parking Study: "Based on the analysis of each proposed land use, engineers recommend 112-115 parking stalls to accommodate residents (plus visitors), church and public use. OBUC designs include 115 stalls, meeting the upper range of the recommended number."

OBUC Traffic Study: "The study finds that the project area’s main traffic impacts are the result of vehicles bypassing Oak Bay Ave. The OBUC project is not expected to be a factor in adding traffic to the area due to low vehicle ratios for affordable housing, space for bicycles and proximity of public transportation."

How can a development of 96 units, with I'm guessing at least 150 people, likely more, have no impact on local traffic? The Traffic Study by Watt Consulting Group (May 2018) makes the assumption that "Trip generation rates for affordable housing are generally lower than market rental. Studies have demonstrated that vehicle trips per household increase as income increases."

As it is uncertain how many individuals are being considered low income and how many of higher income, concluding how many trips may be generated is sheer speculation. I live on Mitchell Street and my daily observations since the recent parking restriction on Granite Street are that there has been a noticeable impact on traffic. So, combine this with the potential added traffic from the residents in the proposed development, there will be considerable impact on the use of surrounding roads as well as on street parking. The study's conclusion that there will be little impact on traffic is ludicrous.

Closer examination of The Parking Study by Watt Consulting Group submitted in May 2018, provides details of this proposal. It is based on providing 47 parking stalls for 96 units; 10 stalls for Visitor parking, as well as 15 stalls for Church programming, and 35 stalls to be leased for Municipal use.

However, Oak Bay By-Law 3540 determines the minimum parking supply for Multi-family developments @1.5 per unit. Following that, for 96 units the current requirement would be for 154 parking stalls. The Church parking lot currently has 53 spaces, while Church programming use within P-2 Zone requires 117 parking spaces. Allowing the Church to continue to have only 53 spaces as currently provided in their parking lot, the total number would be 217 parking stalls.  Even requiring only 1 parking stall per unit, the total required would be 159!

The proposed 115 parking stalls allows only 47 stalls for 96 units. This recommendation is based on observations by the consultants at other 'representative Multifamily sites with countable/visible parking spaces', ie buildings with only surface parking. These observations were made on two night time occasions in February 2018 (p9), presumably when all the residents were at home. This is an extremely limited strategy to measure the parking needs of potential residents in the proposed OBUC development.

It concludes that "should there be 'overspill' it could be accommodated on Mitchell St and Brighton St which have no parking restrictions". At a minimum there would be an overspill of 44 cars!  Both streets are now contending with the increased volume of traffic and parking due to the recent 2Hr 9-5 Restriction on Granite Street between Foul Bay Road and Mitchell Street. This is certainly not acceptable as a solution to the under provision of parking for this development.

Providing more parking in the proposed two level underground parking area would require deeper blasting. The Geotechnical Report provided by Ryzuk Geotechnical states that "drilling and blasting will require underpinning and/or shoring" of the Church and adjacent structures for the 7 metre maximum. The Report is based on two levels and a new Report would have to be done for going deeper. This report also indicates that vibrations could cause damage to homes close by.

Add to this the Thrift Shop hours on Friday and Saturday to both parking and traffic. I note that the Traffic Study states that the Thrift Shop will continue to operate at the proposed site, while the near residents were told that it would move off site!

My daily observation and experience seem to me to be more real and valid than the methods used by the consultants. The consultants' conclusions are certainly questionable and I hope Mayor, Councillors and staff will take a close of these studies.

The future of Oak Bay’s now quiet streets?

The future of Oak Bay’s now quiet streets?

Janet Poth
Oak Bay

A simple message to the Oak Bay United Church and its Development Team

Our principles are simple:

  • We don’t have secrets.

  • We have nothing to hide. 

  • We have this website.

  • We put signs outside our houses.

  • We send letters to the editor for everyone to see.  

We think the idea of appropriate affordable housing on the parking lot is laudable. 

All we are asking from BC Housing, the OBUC and its development team is simple:

DON’T PRETEND.  DON’T BUILD WALLS.  PLEASE PUT INFORMATION OUT THERE - WITHOUT BEING ASKED. 

Photo from Pexel.

Photo from Pexel.

When is a loan Not a Loan?

This following letter was emailed to Malcolm McNaughton, Director of Regional Development, Vancouver Island on October 21, 2018.
If you’d like to contact Mr. McNaughton, his email address is: mmcnaughton@bchousing.org

Dear Sir,
Re: Oak Bay United Church,

First, congratulations on your receipt of a 2018 Care Award for creating Excellence in Housing Affordability.

And, secondly, I and many Oak Bay residents recognize the need for affordable housing.

However, B. C. Housing GAVE AWAY $500,000 of taxpayer monies to Oak Bay United church to develop a 6 story 269 unit housing proposal on church property and some of the units would be affordable.  Under the church's contract with B. C. Housing these taxpayer monies do not have to be returned if the project doesn't proceed (presumably the 269 unit project).  As you probably know, the proposal presented to B. C. Housing was not presented to the District of Oak Bay but instead a proposal was presented to build 96 units of housing as follows:

4  market priced 100 year leasehold town houses
35 market affordable units
57 affordable units

and all of this development, with unit size not meeting zoning requirements, would be on approximately 47,000 sq. ft. of land amid a block of single family homes.

Current zoning requires 90+ parking stalls for church use, 196 parking stalls for the units and 23+ parking stalls for guests.  Using the current surface parking lot for development would mean blasting down through granite rock for parking.  The proposed development would face Granite Street which is a transition street and bears most of the truck traffic servicing the Oak Bay village which includes a Fairways grocery store.  There is very little street parking on Granite Street so it would be reasonable to assume that vehicles would park on Victoria Avenue, thereby reducing the street to single lane traffic.  And as traffic increases it can be difficult to make a turn from Granite onto Foul Bay Road.

In addition to the traffic and parking situations, the size of the proposed development doesn't meet current zoning requirements and would occupy 23% more land that currently allowed.
Considering all of the above, how could you give away so much taxpayer money, with no strings attached, for an even larger development?  Why didn't somebody from B. C. Housing look at the proposed site and the current zoning requirements and question the application before being so generous?  After all, it is not the responsibility of taxpayers to fund any business, including a religious organization.

It is all so disappointing as B. C. Housing has funded some great developments but it appears that not much care was given to the proposal presented by Oak Bay United church.

B Sirinic
Oak Bay

cc Hard copy delivered to District of Oak Bay mayor and counselors

Within hours Mr. McNaughton replied:  

We did not give away any money. The money that BCH has loaned Oak Bay United Church is secured by a mortgage on the property. It is common for initial design concepts to evolve through the development process.

Malcolm McNaughton
Director Regional Development – Vancouver Island

It seems Mr. McNaughton deflected the question of whether or not the money was given or advanced via a forgivable loan. Yes the loan must be repaid if the project goes forward but if it doesn’t, there is no obligation to repay it.

Later that evening clarification was requested:

To: Malcolm McNaughton
Subject: Re: DISTRICT OF OAK BAY

Thank you for your information. An internal B. C. Housing Executive Committee document stated "The requested $503,392 including GST will be given out as an interest free loan and will be evidenced through a Promissory note.  If the project proceeds the loan will be repaid through the anticipated interim construction financing to be provided at Final Project Approval.  Should the project never proceed the PDF loan will be forgiven."

I further understand that, at a later date, there was an additional loan of $300,000 that was secured by a mortgage against the church but I don't know the terms of this financial arrangement.

B Sirinic

Note: The additional loan of $300,00 may not have been advanced yet.
In the same afternoon that Mr. McNaughton was replying to the above letter, he answered another inquiry about the additional $300,000 this way:

We have not completed the processing of the request for additional funds.  If the request is approved it would generally be on the same terms as the original request although there are instances when additional terms may attached to an approval. 

Malcolm McNaughton
Director Regional Development – Vancouver Island

 

Investigation needed - Times Colonist October 12, 2018

Some history to the letter that follows:
Many of us have asked, on numerous occasions, for the names of the people who comprise the Development Team driving the OBUC’s proposed project.

secret pexels-photo-315918.png


To date, we have asked the OBUC directly, in emails, letters, and, on October 1, on Facebook on the Oak Bay Municipal Election Discussion page. Here is a screenshot of that conversation:

When that didn’t work, we wrote to the Executive Committee of the BC Conference, United Church of Canada (October 6, 2018) about this and a few other matters.
To date, the senior branch of the church has not provided the names of the Development Team, nor do they seem to have encouraged the OBUC to share this information in the spirit of transparency.

Curiosity.jpeg

Then, on October 9th, the Times-Colonist published an article titled Oak Bay mayoral candidates at odds on housing. This piece, written by Richard Watts, repeated many of the OBUC’s favourite refrains.
Following is one response to the inaccuracies in that report. Also in this letter the question is asked again: Who is the Development Team?
The longer that this vital information is withheld, the greater our curiosity - and the more this important question will continue to be asked.

How design images conceal the truth - TC Oct 10, 2016

One aspect of any design application is the artist’s rendering. These are the soothing images that persuade an unsuspecting public that proposed projects will slide into the landscape with barely a ripple. They ignore shadow patterns, traffic snarls, and strain on infrastructure.
As of today’s date, the Oak Bay United Church has not shared the Shadow Study in respect to its proposed development. The District of Oak Bay still refuses to allow public access to the application file.

The OBUC drawings are done from the perspective of someone standing 20' to 30' above the ground (6 m to 9 m above the ground).   See this page

The OBUC drawings are done from the perspective of someone standing 20' to 30' above the ground (6 m to 9 m above the ground). See this page

A personal point of view - shared by many

A letter to the Mayor and Councillors of the Municipality of Oak Bay September 24, 2018:

Within the past month the Oak Bay United Church has presented an application for development of their property. Our neighbourhood is very concerned and I, as an immediate neighbour, would be severely impacted by this proposed development. I write with deep concern about their proposal.
I have lived on Granite Street for 41 years now. In 1977, when we moved into Granite Street, there were two Arts and Crafts bungalows (belonging to the United Church) to the west of our house, there were no sidewalks, it was a much more pastoral ambience. Granite Street is a local street (neither arterial nor collector) and I was reassured that the OCP kept the south side of Granite zoned as single family housing. This reassurance has been shaken by the possibility of such an enormous development on the property right next to mine.
The size, scale, and density proposed would be disastrous to my property and to our neighbourhood.
Placing nearly 100 more households on this one street would create extreme street and parking congestion and would make significant demands on all existing infrastructures.
The Geotechnical report states that extensive blasting would be necessary to create two stories of parking underground. The same report tells me my 105 year-old house could suffer damage and that underpinning may be required. Construction crews would need to encroach on my property to dig the SEVEN meter deep hole.
Light, both loss of natural light and light pollution is a major concern.
The west side of my house would be in the shadow of a 48 foot, four-storey building. My kitchen window would face the new construction and the entrance to the parkade. Noise, light, and air pollution would be significant (to put it mildly).
I ask you to consider this. If you were asked to have an entrance to a parking garage opposite your kitchen window with: 

·         cars entering and exiting all day and well into the evening,

·         the door opening and closing each time,

·         exterior lighting shining on your house 24/7,

·         headlights of cars shining into your kitchen,

·         exhaust from those vehicles in your airspace,

·         exhaust from the parking garage being pumped out into your airspace.

Would this be acceptable to you? And all this after enduring a couple of years of intense blasting and excavation that might threaten the structure of your home. It is not acceptable to me, indeed I feel it would make my gracious old home unlivable.
I ask you to reject this development proposal while suggesting to the developer that they come back with a much more modest plan that can build community, provide light, air and green space for everyone.
S. MacRae
Oak Bay

Months of drilling and blasting will put many period homes at risk.

Months of drilling and blasting will put many period homes at risk.

Playing with numbers - to OBN Sept 10, 2018

As of today’s date (September 20, 2018) the Oak Bay News hasn’t published this letter. Its author sent it to us to publish on our website:

September 10, 2018

Letters to the editor, Oak Bay News

United Church Overdevelopment Project

When I was taking Statistics many years ago, we used a textbook called “How to lie with Statistics”.
The article “Oak Bay United Church (OBUC) submits rezoning application” (OBN, Sept. 5th), shows some of these underhanded tactics in practice. The article reports the findings of a survey carried out by the OBUC. The number of people polled, by phone and at a single Open House was not disclosed. The report fails to disclose the wording of the questions asked or the domicile of the recipients polled, casting doubts on the integrity of the data.

The results were filed into three groups, Agree, Disagree and Neutral.

Question 1: Did the project fit into the Granite Street neighbourhood?
Answer:
Agree and Neutral (added together) 44%
Disagree 66%

Question 2: Did the project fit into the rest of Oak Bay?
Answer:
Agree and Neutral (added together) 69%
Disagree 31%

Question 3: Parking and Congestion Issues in Granite Street.
Answer:
Agree and Neutral (added together) 50%
Disagree 50%

Question 4: Parking and Congestion issues in the rest of Oak Bay.
Answer:
Agree and Neutral (added together) 31%
Disagree 69%

I would like to see a meaningful analysis of this survey. The response “Neutral” means that the person being interviewed does not know about the project or doesn’t feel strongly one way or another.
It does not mean they agree. Their responses could just as validly be grouped with the Disagree responses. What would the results tell us then?

S. Doughty

Oak Bay

pexels-photo-186461.jpeg

Invitation to dialogue - OBN August 7, 2018

As a reasonably active member of Oak Bay United Church, I am always interested in a constructive conversation with my neighbours. Ordinarily, such a conversation would have three key elements: the assumption of good faith on the part of others involved in the conversation (even where there is disagreement about priorities, projects, or processes); avoiding emotionally charged language; and sharing facts and avoiding misinformation.
I am disappointed that Mr. Tod (SIC) uses language such as “specious” and “dubious tactics”. I am disappointed that he has concluded that the congregation acted in bad faith, asserting that “meaningful dialogue was not wanted”.
Mr. Tod shares, as fact, that the original proposal was for 269 housing units on one acre. I invite Mr. Tod to provide the primary source on which this statement is based. As far as I know, the original proposal was for almost half that number. If I am correct, the current proposal represents a reduction in the scope of the proposal of about 1/3. If correct, the current proposal represents a reduction in the scope of the proposal of about 2/3. In either case, it appears that the congregation has addressed “the critical issue of size and density” – perhaps not to Mr. Tod’s satisfaction, but substantially nevertheless. If we use Mr. Tod’s own, as yet unsubstantiated number, Oak Bay will have 175 fewer below market housing units than it would have. Mr. Tod and his neighbours have apparently been successful. And they are under no obligation to offer other suggestions about how to deal with the low cost housing crisis.
In any case, I look forward to Mr. Tod confirming the original proposal was for 269 units. I also invite him to have coffee with me one day, so that we can carry on the conversation.
David King
Read the online version of this letter here.

Opposition not diminished - TC August 8, 2018

When Cheryl Thomas told a Times Colonist reporter that opposition to to the Oak Bay United Church’s proposal had diminished, the church’s neighbours were confounded. How had she formed this opinion? Did she arrive at it because she doesn’t live near the church and failed to see all the protest?
Maybe, like a lot of politicians these days, she thought if she said it often enough, it might come true?

FOI raises fears - OBN July 27, 2018

Click on the article to read an online version of this letter: