The Quest, at 2326 Oak Bay Ave., is an exemplary small-scale multi-unit residential project that would be a shoo-in in any other municipality in the Capital Regional District.
In rejecting the proposed development, Oak Bay council has failed again on the housing front. In their March 30 commentary defending their decision to scuttle the project before it got to a public hearing, councillors Hazel Braithwaite and Cairine Green raise flimsy arguments.
Meanwhile, Mayor Kevin Murdoch is not providing the leadership that might rally council to review a flawed decision. We are all the worse for this political inertia.
On March 14, the developer returned to council with a significantly revised proposal that addressed all prior concerns. The project was supported by two council advisory bodies.
This is a beautiful building which would provide 14 units of reasonably sized housing and greatly enhance the streetscape. It ticks all the right boxes: Small footprint; landscaped grounds with many new trees; on a public transportation route, and walking distance to the village; built to a higher than required energy standard; and many more.
We need more housing in Oak Bay, for those who want to downsize and stay, and for those who want to come. As a CRD member municipality, we are required to do our part to accommodate regional growth by adding a mix of housing types and tenures to support compact, walkable, bikeable communities. So, moving this project to the next stage should have been an easy decision.
Unfortunately, while the developer’s team and municipal staff did a good job of presenting the project and answering questions, there was much confused and misleading discussion among council members that was never countered. This provides an opening for the mayor to bring the item back for reconsideration, and he should do so.
Four misplaced areas of concern should be addressed and a new vote taken.
First, some councillors suggested that driveway access to the project would create new pedestrian and traffic hazards. Yet planned streetscape improvements that are supported by the municipal engineering staff would make things better for everyone, not worse.
Second, disruption to neighbours from site blasting should not stop a project. Blasting is an unavoidable aspect of site preparation to permit underground structures and servicing and is routinely tolerated throughout Oak Bay neighbourhoods for the construction of new, single-family homes.
Third, a four-metre height difference between adjacent buildings is inconsequential. Consider the wide range of heights of the buildings that front Oak Bay and Newport avenues in the vicinity of the proposal. Given the natural slope of the street, changes in roof heights will not catch the eye, especially when a building is graciously designed and proportioned.
Fourth, given current land values and construction costs, it is not possible to provide one or two units of affordable housing in this small building without a large public subsidy. It is extremely disingenuous of councillors Hazel Braithwaite and Cairine Green to suggest that the developer should be responsible for achieving this, and then also suggest duplex, triplex or small townhouses might be a better fit, as if those forms of housing would somehow magically be more affordable still.
Sadly, if Oak Bay council cannot make the easy decision to say “yes” to The Quest, it will simply be a continuation of their constant heel-dragging on any initiatives that support housing choice.
After a 10-year process, council has delivered a secondary suites bylaw that will be the kiss of death to any new, legal rental suites, as at least one more on-site parking space will be required for every unit, counter to all climate change wisdom and common sense.
Folding to the concerns of a few neighbours, council also rejected a sound proposal from Oak Bay United Church for a housing complex that would have provided dozens of affordable and market rate units just steps from the village centre.
And eight years after the adoption of our Official Community Plan, we still await the necessary zoning bylaw to give effect to its housing goals.
Fourteen units of handsome, adequately sized housing have been rejected by Oak Bay council for spurious reasons. Oak Bay council has, yet again, voted in favour of “do nothing.”
Might the mayor lead the way by seeking to clarify misinformation and misapprehensions among council members and move the project forward? Or is it time for the province to step in to deal with this lack of progress, as it has recently signalled it may do?
