And he might not be a Saanch resident. City documents in the past have him in an apartment on Pendergast in CoV.
Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:18 AM
Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:22 AM
I kind of question how big this group is. Searches come up blank for Homeowners for the EDPA.
Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:32 AM
On the local Governance FB page yesterday Benn Kerr made a claim that the directors of SCRES were developers of which 2 lived in the Uplands (not sure what that has to do with this unless its to make out they arent progressives so therefore should be villified) no mention of whether these evil people actually owned land inside the EDPA or not. It was pointed out by a few folks who these folks were (i.e. one of the owners of Rootcellar) and he changed his comment. Wasnt following the thread so closely while this took place but it flashed up and within a few mins it was changed.
If this bylaw is repealed, the sky will not fall, the sun will still rise tomorrow and perhaps this will be an opportunity for a reasoned approach to creating an environmental policy that doesnt run roughshod over a homeowner who wants to extend their patio or do some landscaping
Posted 09 November 2017 - 06:11 PM
- VicHockeyFan and rjag like this
Posted 09 November 2017 - 08:16 PM
Rjag why would an Oak Bay resident be lobbying against a bylaw in Saanich?
I have no idea, you should ask him? Perhaps he owns property in Saanich that he is concerned about, perhaps he is doing this because his parents or his in-laws are affected and they are seniors and he is being an advocate.....there are a myriad of reasons why someone in a neighbouring municipality may express an interest and get involved. Heck even Mayor Screech has been involved because his aging parents have concerns.
Just look at some of the other threads here, lots of folks are involved with CoV issues but reside in Saanich, should they not be allowed to get involved as our region is so small that a decision in one part of the region may have an effect on another....McKenzie overpass is a classic example, should only the residents of that neighbourhood have a say in that? Sewage treatment plant and its location....should that be limited to Esquimalt residents....Johnson St Bridge fiasco, Tent City..... We live in very close quarters and as such we are all citizens of the region and are affected directly or indirectly by decisions both good and bad.
Edited by rjag, 09 November 2017 - 08:17 PM.
Posted 09 November 2017 - 09:41 PM
I'm not talking about threads on an internet forum, or people's opinions that they are sharing openly, I'm talking about a registered director of an organization called 'Saanich Citizens...', who resides in Oak Bay, and who was never visibly associated with the organization aside from in government filings. Just look up at the top of the page. VHF points out concerns about Larry Wartels, who has his own personal name out there at least, potentially not residing in Saanich. I don't care if you live in Saanich or not, just don't hide behind an organization called 'Saanich Citizens'. You might find this inconsequential, but its just one more thing for the anti-EDPA group. Professionals acting unethically, spreading of blatant misinformation, and a suggestion that the only thing needed for the EDPA to be scientific, was for it to only apply to public property. It's like a bad Scooby Doo episode.
Posted 09 November 2017 - 09:56 PM
We have Councillors that dont live in the municipality they represent, how do you square that circle? Shouldn't make a difference whether he lives in Oak Bay or Whitehorse, thats only his principle residence, where is his place of business? Does he own land in Saanich? Does he pay taxes in Saanich? In this case yes, he pays business taxes and perhaps he owns the location his business operates out of...that would give him a vested interest and a direct interest....where he sleeps has nothing to do with it.
Edited by rjag, 09 November 2017 - 10:16 PM.
Posted 03 October 2018 - 02:07 PM
Well what happened, if the hearing was in June?
After looking at the CAB discipline process (https://www.cab-bc.o...t_18jul2017.pdf), they've done the hearing and I'm guessing they are now deliberating RE consequence. There doesn't appear to be any mention of consequence on the CAB website yet. As a biologist member of CAB myself, I have also recently heard that the CAB legal bill for this specific discipline instance has been substantial and members will be levied an extra fee on 2019 dues to top-up the CAB legal fund.
Edited by slow1234, 03 October 2018 - 02:09 PM.
Posted 31 October 2018 - 06:05 PM
There is also an FAQ on the college website that states that the cost of the current hearing has been approximately $150,000.
The registrar advised that the discipline panel is arm's length from the college, so they have no read on timelines, but thought a result might be expected around the end of the year.
- slow1234 likes this
Posted 11 December 2018 - 11:37 AM
From looking at the college website, it appears that there has only been one discipline hearing previously. https://www.cab-bc.o...mber-complaints
I went looking today to see if a decision had been made RE Ted Lea, but no updates have been posted.
I did dig for the one previous discipline hearing report that Benn mentioned - it can be found at https://www.cab-bc.o...08-04_final.pdf - if anyone's interested.
Posted 17 December 2018 - 06:01 AM
^ Thanks for that Benn.
Posted 17 December 2018 - 09:14 AM
Edit: I don't know why I can't revise the line spacing. Sorry.
If you edit your post as plain text and strip out all the 'size' tags, it'll look normal.
Posted 17 December 2018 - 09:39 AM
Verdict is now available on the college website, it looks like the decision regarding penalty and costs will be a separate process.
While I understand that Mr. Lea is retired, this is an unfortunate footnote to a long and establish career.
Posted 03 May 2019 - 02:17 PM
Today's College of Applied Biology e-newsletter included a link to a PDF summarizing penalties to Mr. Lea. I won't post the link from the e-newsletter
(a screenshot is attached instead), but I'm sure it will be posted to the CAB website soon. In short, Mr. Lea was fined $7000 (payable by end of May) and has had his CAB membership permanently rescinded.
EDIT: I found the redirect link from the e-newsletter to the CAB website PDF. Have removed the screenshot....
Edited by slow1234, 03 May 2019 - 02:40 PM.
Posted 02 July 2020 - 08:37 PM
From: Saanich EDPA <email@example.com>
Date: Thu., Jun. 25, 2020, 8:27 p.m.
Subject: SCRES NEWSLETTER - Technical Committee
SCRES hopes all of you are healthy, staying safe, and enjoying summer that has finally arrived. Saanich's call out for applicants for the Resilient SaanichTechnical Committee has also finally arrived. At the last Saanich council meeting for Resilient Saanich, October 29/19, staff advised this Technical Committee could be in place by January 2020. SCRES contacted Environmental Services in March enquiring as to the delay and were advised by saff that staff were making internal revisions to the Terms of Reference that Council passed on October 29/19. We find this somewhat concerning, along with the 6 months delay in putting out a call for applicants, given Council directed staff to expedite the process. Of further concern, is that the call out directs applicants to submit their applications to Environmental Services. Applications for any other committees are submitted to Legislative Services. It should be no different for this Technical Committee. Given the EDPA has been a troublesome issue for several years, is we are to have any confidence in the process going forward, these applications need to go through Legislative Services.
SCRES has major concerns regarding the proposed direction being put forward by Environmental Services Staff.
SCRES believes that the Technical Advisory Committee must report directly to Saanich Council and needs to interact directly with Council to determine directions forward. The Committee will have experts – why would they be used to assist staff, who are not experts in these issues. All communications between the Committee and Council should be openly provided to the public for our input. There are many strategic issues that Council must deal with. Landowners were mostly ignored when the original EDPA was implemented. We assume Council does not want to follow this path again.
SCRES believes that the Parks Department should be the lead department implementing this project, in association with the Technical Committee and Council. Most of the natural biodiversity is in Saanich Parks, the Parks Department deals with Tree Bylaw and other tree issues, as well as runs the Boulevard Tree program and the Pulling Together program that deals with invasive species in Saanich. The message that having Environmental Services leading this project implies that this project will be all about private lands. The present report does not mention the Parks Department, nor Parks in any actions, except in the vision statement which comes from the OCP which mentions natural areas.
There is no indication that the program is going to include a voluntary private land stewardship program, that works WITH landowners, with education, cooperation, and encourage as the Saanich OCP suggests.
There is no indication in the report that any significant action will take place in Saanich Parks, despite the Diamond Head report which stated: “that the District of Saanich could do more to lead by example when it comes to working in and around Environmentally Significant Areas; and to encourage environmental stewardship…” ”better management and preservation of existing ESAs on public land, and more restoration of degraded public areas… Saanich should lead on removal of invasive species and the planting of native species in park land.”
SCRES believes that if Council cannot commit significant resources to restoration of Saanich Parks, then only voluntary actions can be expected on private land. SCRES fully supports a voluntary private land stewardship program with Saanich providing significant support and encouragement to assure success.
SCRES believes that Council must assure that this whole project is developed in consultation of landowners and provides complete transparency and openness about directions forward and options involved. The participation level by landowners needs to be fairly high and consultation needs to be continuous.
There has never been an evaluation of the effectiveness of the previous EDPA in terms of actions such as required native plant gardens, covenants and corridors. Issues such as these need to be addressed before any actions such as an EDPA is considered. Clearly, from this report, staff are recommending policy tools when it is unclear whether they will provide an effective environmental result. SCRES is concerned that staff are looking to create an EDPA or actions that are worse than the original EDPA with no effectiveness evaluation.
WHAT TO WRITE COUNCIL
We recommend that if you are willing that you provide a letter to Council to support the following:
· That the Biodiversity, Climate Change Adaptation and Private Land Stewardship Program be led by the Parks Department, or at the least co-led by the Parks Department. Environmental Services should be involved in this process but should not lead it.
· That the Technical Advisory Committee should report directly to Council. Council should provide strategic direction to the Committee and then ultimately to staff.
· That full consultation actions take place throughout the development of this program and complete transparency and openness be required by Council.
firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Saanich Citizens for Resilient Environmental Stewardship
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users