Skip to content

UPDATED: Saanich sends almost 30 EDPA properties to “mega public hearing” on May 13

As Saanich eyes to stage a “mega-public hearing” next month concerning a controversial environmental bylaw, staff has signaled council that it opposes one of its central ambitions.
web1_170412-SNE-EDPA-FIVE_1

As Saanich eyes to stage a “mega-public hearing” next month concerning a controversial environmental bylaw, staff has signaled council that it opposes one of its central ambitions.

Council in March passed a motion that all single family-zoned lots be “temporarily exempted” from the Environmental Development Permit (EDPA) bylaw, until council has received the final report of consultant who is currently reviewing the controversial bylaw.

Staff however questioned the feasibility of the proposed temporary exemption in recommending against it.

Sharon Hvozdanski, director of planning, told council that its intention to suspend the EDPA bylaw until council received the consultant’s report “cannot be achieved” within a bylaw amendment. It would instead require multiple amendments to various bylaws, a process that would likely not wrap until mid-to-late May, some three to four weeks before the expected receipt of the report from Diamond Head Consulting, she said.

“This begs the question of the value of undertaking the bylaw changes, as opposed to waiting for the outcome of the [consulting] report,” she said.

The report also raised the possibility that the temporary suspension of the EDPA could cause “potential damage to the environment, including rare species and ecosystems, due to gaps in environmental protection and loss of redundancy with environmental guidelines in place prior to the EDPA.”

Reactions to staff’s opposition varied.

“I appreciate staff’s input in scoping out other implications linked to this particular motion,” said Coun. Fred Haynes. “And that gives us food for thought as we prepare for next week,” he said.

Mayor Richard Atwell meanwhile asked staff to explain the report and its recommendation. “I thought we’re trying to get this to a public hearing,” he said. “Can somebody clarify to me why the recommendation to council is not to support this direction? I thought the direction came from council to get this to a public hearing. Am I understanding this correctly?”

While Chief administrative Paul Thorkelsson confirmed this direction, he added that the staff report describes the implications of that direction. “It requires changes to [various] bylaws,” he said.

Council received the report as it pondered first reading of amendments to the Official Community Plan that would have sent the proposed suspension of the bylaw to a public hearing next month. Council however postponed first reading until next meeting to give staff additional time to broaden the categories of single-family properties that could be excluded from the EDPA.

Council meanwhile forwarded nearly 30 properties to what Coun. Colin Plant called a “mega public hearing” on Saturday, May 13 to be held at Garth Homer Society on Darwin Avenue.

Hvozdanski’s report publicly confirms concerns that the proposed exclusion of single residences from the EDPA might be indeed rather temporary. Even public supporters of the proposed exclusion including Coun. Colin Plant have acknowledged this possibility in telling the public that some properties slated for exclusion from the EDPA could eventually return to it.

Plant however previously refuted the argument that the temporary exclusion of some properties from the EDPA would damage the environment. Property owners are not so short-sighted that they would deliberately damage their own properties, he said.

While not necessarily surprising, staff opposition to the proposed temporary exclusion of single residence from the EDPA bylaw perpetuates an emerging pattern in the relationship between council and staff over the bylaw.

This pattern has seen staff become increasingly public in expressing their professional disagreements with council’s approach towards the EDPA.

In late March, Thorkelsson accused council of “thin-slicing” changes to the EDPA, thereby causing confusion for the public and staff. This comment drew a rebuke from Coun. Fred Haynes.

“It is important to remember that a year ago we voted to keep the EDPA in place and to consider properties one at a time as they came forward,” he said. “That is why we are here today. So we are thin-slicing. But a year ago, that was the decision. This is the outcome of that decision.”

Council approved the proposed exclusion by a 5-4 vote, with the late councillor Vic Derman voting against it.



Wolf Depner

About the Author: Wolf Depner

I joined the national team with Black Press Media in 2023 from the Peninsula News Review, where I had reported on Vancouver Island's Saanich Peninsula since 2019.
Read more