Saanich EDPA

So instead of building a 12 homes in a 1.5 acre parcel of land completely razing the natural area, maybe building 8 or 6 homes within it and trying to maintain a necessary corridor for habitat. 

 

 

Great idea, at least superficially.

 

The Elkington Forest is perhaps the ideal of what you want.  Too bad it has a Walk Score of 0. 

 

The example above is pretty much exactly what is going on, on the south side of Christmas Hill currently. The chunk out of the mapping on the west side of the image below, around 4007 and 4011 Rainbow, was a removal from the Atlas June 2016. The owners claim that they don't intend to develop. Yet the developer who is currently building the Lyra project nextdoor at 4027 Rainbow, owns 804-820 McKenzie. He built the townhouses and homes further up Rainbow about 8 years ago. 4007 and 4011 Rainbow are the only two properties left on his monopoly board. They are about 1.6 acres in total area. 

 

The scenario from Saanich that would've been approved under the EDPA, was a six lot subdivision between 4007 and 4011. For some reason the homeowners thought that would make it difficult for them to sell. Could they get twelve dwellings there instead of 6? Is there any point in making the whole situation more complicated when the development occurs? You'd think the developer and Saanich could've found a way to do things at least considering the environment. There are a bunch of oak trees in there that will come down to make way for roofs.

 

Oh, I will be. This is part of my background campaign to soften the defenses for when I submit my application. It's very calculated.

Or you could spend a few hundred and hire a biologist to check out your property and write a short report for you. But if you think trying to drum up the villagers with torches and pitchforks is the way to go then by all means.... I can give you a few biologist contacts....

Great idea, at least superficially.

The Elkington Forest is perhaps the ideal of what you want. Too bad it has a Walk Score of 0.

I would say that is incorrect in reference to it's vision. Now yes. It's a gravel pit with a show home. I would say Ellington is an example of a high-end "ideal version" of something related to european inspired eco village. Very interesting concept. If I had lots of money and a time machine so I could fast forward twenty years I would be very interested in that community. But the ideal form depends on the location. Around the Hudson area to Uptown it should be high rise / high density, Fairfield Oakbay close to Victoria should be low rise row and town house, maybe even Langford and Colwood now the tram line is going in.... Areas bordering natural habitat that has been pinpointed as sensitive should be considerate to it. It's taken a while for the Gorge water way to stop smelling like sh*t. Wasn't that silly of us treating it like that?

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - MARCH 27TH, 7:30 PM, SAANICH HALL

 

Seven  applications for Treetop Rd. and Cordova Bay Rd. will be heard by council.  Again, Saanich staff is challenging the applicants biologist and has has hired a non-registered biologist to assess these 7 properties without going onto them.  The staff report for these applications can be found on the Saanich website.

 

MARINE BUFFERS -  The Screech application for 2893 Seaview, that went to council in November 2016 and was approved to proceed to Public Hearing, goes before council on March 27th to discuss the Marine Buffer only.  The  results of this meeting could have implications for all marine properties in Saanich.  We understand there are approximately 650 marine properties in Saanich.  We encourage all marine property owners to attend this very important meeting.

The staff report to council for this application can be found on the Saanich website. 

 

Saanich Citizens for a Responsible EDPA Society

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - MARCH 27TH, 7:30 PM, SAANICH HALL

 

Seven  applications for Treetop Rd. and Cordova Bay Rd. will be heard by council.  Again, Saanich staff is challenging the applicants biologist and has has hired a non-registered biologist to assess these 7 properties without going onto them.  The staff report for these applications can be found on the Saanich website.

 

MARINE BUFFERS -  The Screech application for 2893 Seaview, that went to council in November 2016 and was approved to proceed to Public Hearing, goes before council on March 27th to discuss the Marine Buffer only.  The  results of this meeting could have implications for all marine properties in Saanich.  We understand there are approximately 650 marine properties in Saanich.  We encourage all marine property owners to attend this very important meeting.

The staff report to council for this application can be found on the Saanich website. 

 

Saanich Citizens for a Responsible EDPA Society

 

rjag, can you find the link and post it?

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - MARCH 27TH, 7:30 PM, SAANICH HALL

 

Seven  applications for Treetop Rd. and Cordova Bay Rd. will be heard by council.  Again, Saanich staff is challenging the applicants biologist and has has hired a non-registered biologist to assess these 7 properties without going onto them.  The staff report for these applications can be found on the Saanich website.

 

MARINE BUFFERS -  The Screech application for 2893 Seaview, that went to council in November 2016 and was approved to proceed to Public Hearing, goes before council on March 27th to discuss the Marine Buffer only.  The  results of this meeting could have implications for all marine properties in Saanich.  We understand there are approximately 650 marine properties in Saanich.  We encourage all marine property owners to attend this very important meeting.

The staff report to council for this application can be found on the Saanich website. 

 

Saanich Citizens for a Responsible EDPA Society

 

Interesting.  The "Screech application" is View Royal Mayor David Screech's father.  According to the applicant, he is unable to mow the lawn, garden and move garden furniture without seeking approval.

 

http://www.saanich.c...wnov1016rcw.pdf

I wonder where he got that idea?

At least he is applying for an amendment to his property which the mechanism allows for. I don't hear him launching a campaign against all environmental protection. What makes this place special is we still have nature. We have a working harbour, with nature. That is a truly unique balance. That is the ideal....

That application is part of the broader campaign to remove the bylaw, as demonstrated by the advocacy from Saanich Citizens for a Responsible EDPA Society. The biology work was again complementary here. The current bylaw in no way limits his existing use of the property. The fundamental question is really, do you think Saanich should have a role in marine foreshore planning that spans multiple properties? Everything points to that being in the best interest of the public.

 

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - MARCH 27TH, 7:30 PM, SAANICH HALL

 

Seven  applications for Treetop Rd. and Cordova Bay Rd. will be heard by council.  Again, Saanich staff is challenging the applicants biologist and has has hired a non-registered biologist to assess these 7 properties without going onto them.  The staff report for these applications can be found on the Saanich website.

 

MARINE BUFFERS -  The Screech application for 2893 Seaview, that went to council in November 2016 and was approved to proceed to Public Hearing, goes before council on March 27th to discuss the Marine Buffer only.  The  results of this meeting could have implications for all marine properties in Saanich.  We understand there are approximately 650 marine properties in Saanich.  We encourage all marine property owners to attend this very important meeting.

The staff report to council for this application can be found on the Saanich website. 

 

Saanich Citizens for a Responsible EDPA Society

We have a working harbour, with nature. That is a truly unique balance. That is the ideal....

 

We would have no working harbour if an EPDA got slapped on the first 25 feet of every waterfront commercial operation here.  Ralmax, Snitzer Steel, Point Hope would all have to close.

That application is part of the broader campaign to remove the bylaw, as demonstrated by the advocacy from Saanich Citizens for a Responsible EDPA Society. The biology work was again complementary here. The current bylaw in no way limits his existing use of the property. The fundamental question is really, do you think Saanich should have a role in marine foreshore planning that spans multiple properties? Everything points to that being in the best interest of the public.

 

Can someone please post the link.  Or remove the clip/paste.  That's our rules here.  

Can someone please post the link.  Or remove the clip/paste.  That's our rules here.  

It is an email thread VHF, I signed up for it a few months back and simply receive updates. I dont know if there is a website or not. What I posted was simply copied from my email

 

Heres their website

 

http://apello.org/project/edpa/

Edited by rjag, 21 March 2017 - 08:29 AM.

It is an email thread VHF, I signed up for it a few months back and simply receive updates. I dont know if there is a website or not. What I posted was simply copied from my email

 

OK, that's great then.

http://issuu.com/bla...1/1?mode=mobile

Page 5

^ Is that a HabourCats hat?  I take it all back.  

Received this email last night

 

 

Council voted in support of 6 more applications going to Public Hearing.    A big Thank You to Councillors Plant, Haynes, Brice Wergeland and the Mayor for taking the time to come out to view these properties and all the previous application properties.  The Mayor and these Council are willing to listen, learn and understand the issues. 

 

We believe there are at least another 30 applications waiting to go to council.  We will let you know when there is a date for these applications.

 

Thank you to all of you who continue to write Mayor and Council in support of these applications and to the many of you that attend the council meetings.

 

Saanich Citizens for a Responsible EDPA Society 

http://www.saanichne...sion-from-edpa/

A new twist, this was sent out yesterday

 

Looks like some conflict of interest arguments will be forthcoming and potential legal action....

 

 

Last week SCRES learned that three individuals have filed complaints against Ted Lea, Registered Professional Biologist, with the College of Applied Biology (the professional association that regulates the RPBio. profession).  These individuals are Adriane Pollard (Saanich Manager of Environmental Services) and two members of the self-organized group Saanich Action for the Environment (SAFE) which formed shortly after SCRES began challenging the EDPA. These two SAFE members have spoken frequently at various EDPA council meetings in support of the EDPA and the positions present by Ms. Pollard to deny applicants from removing their properties from the EDPA.

 

 

Ms. Pollard filed her complaint with the College in April 2016.  Ted Lea only learned of this complaint March 31, 2017, almost 1 year after the complaint was lodged.  Mr. Lea has retained legal counsel who has significant experience in municipal law matters and who has given written notice on April 7, 2017 to the District of Saanich’s Mayor and Council, copied to the CAO, regarding Ms. Pollard’s actions. This letter is now a matter of public record and is an important and concerning document for those dealing with the EDPA, so we have provided excerpts of it here. 

 

The letter from Mr. Lea’s lawyer points out that Ms. Pollard’s complaint was lodged against Mr. Lea on April 19, 2016, and that for almost a year after the complaint was lodged “Ms. Pollard dealt with him throughout this period with no disclosure.”  Mr. Lea’s lawyer also states in his letter that “… it is important for the CAO and Council to know about this situation, and the clear conflict that Ms. Pollard has placed herself in over at least the previous 12 months.”

 

Mr. Lea’s lawyer letter continues “It is unfathomable to me that a person with delegated statutory decision-making authority to oversee the implementation of the environmental development permit process would continue in this situation. Ms. Pollard has acted in an adjudicative role without disclosing the personal complaint made by her against another consultant with whom she is dealing in that formal adjudicative capacity.”

 

Mr. Lea’s lawyer’s letter also states “In my view, council should be very concerned about the appearance of bias or unfairness in this situation where the decision-maker has exhibited a personal or professional animosity directed at the professional advisor  for  many  landowners,  with  absolutely  no  disclosure  to  the  advisor  or  to  the  landowners  in  this regard.”

 

In terms of what Saanich should be doing in this situation as a remedy to landowners, Mr. Lea’s lawyer states “In my submission, the situation that has come to light compels council to remove Ms. Pollard’s delegated authority  to  oversee  the  administration  of  the  Environmental  Development  Permit  Area file and adjudication on any environmental development permits applied for, at least until the complaint process that Ms. Pollard has instigated, is resolved. Secondly, in respect of any applications by landowners where Mr. Lea has provided professional input or advice, those landowners should be contacted and provided with an opportunity to have their applications reopened or revisited to the extent that they are or were not satisfied with the outcome of any decisions that Ms. Pollard was involved in. Administrative fairness requires this.”

 

There are a lot of questions that will need to be answered on this matter and it is very important that Council and the CAO hear from you directly on your views regarding this matter. Mr. Lea is a highly respected professional, who has provided his services without charge to many individual homeowners to try and help them through a very difficult process.

 

If you wish to provide Council with your views on this matter, or feel that in your own EDPA dealings with the District of Saanich you were treated unfairly or with a lack of respect, we provide the following links below to send your comments to the CAO and Council. If possible please copy SCRES on your communications so we also are aware.

 

mayor@saanich.ca; leif.wergeland@saanich.ca, susan.brice@saanich.ca; colin.plant@saanich.ca: fred.haynes@saanich.ca; dean.murdock@saanich.ca; judy.brownoff@saanich.ca; Vickie.sanders@saanich.ca; paul.thorkellson@saanich.ca; sharon.hvozdanski@saanich.ca;

 

Saanich Citizens for a Responsible EDPA Society

 

Edited by rjag, 18 April 2017 - 09:16 AM.

Unless he has evidence that the 3 individuals misrepresented their case or acted with malice then the person who needs to be careful is Ted Lea.

Unless he has evidence that the 3 individuals misrepresented their case or acted with malice then the person who needs to be careful is Ted Lea.

 

I'm unsure how conflict of interest rules apply in this type of situation, but the role you play in the decision making process may be called into question whether it was impartial or not. If you cast enough doubt then all decisions made or advice given may have to be revisited.

 

Disclosure rules are usual pretty stringent