Available findings show general support for the protection of environmentally significant areas (ESAs) but disagreements surround the nature of the areas and the role of a controversial bylaw to protect them.
That conclusion emerges after a review of the material that the consultant charged with reviewing the Environmental Development Permit Area (EDPA) bylaw presented during an open house held Thursday at the Salvation Army Citadel Gym at 4030 Douglas St.
This said, the material presented during the open house did not stray beyond the general with findings reflecting the following wording and tenor.
“People seem to agree that Environmentally Significant Areas should be clearly defined and protected,” read one of presented findings. “People seem to disagree about what is environmentally significant, and what objectives the EDPA aims to achieve.”
Observers familiar with the EDPA are unlikely to find such statements controversial.
Diamond Head Consulting held the open house as part of its ongoing independent review of the EDPA, a source of significant, frequently divisive public debate since its inception in March 2012.
Saanich’s EDPA bylaw applies to development on private land (except on land within the Agricultural Land Reserve) wherever mapping shows ESAs. It sets out to protect areas of highest biodiversity in Saanich and requires affected property owners subject to mitigate and restore ecosystems damaged or degraded during development.
The stated goal of Thursday’s open house and accompanying survey sought to get a “sense of people’s preferences on a number of options that could be considered to improve the EDPA,” according to the material presented during the open house.
It is taking place during a politically sensitive period. Earlier this month, council moved towards suspending the application of the EDPA for single residential properties, by a 5-3 vote. Single residential properties constitute the largest categories of the 2,000-plus properties subject to the EDPA. Once approved, the vote means that property owners currently subject to the EDPA can alter their properties without approval from district, unless they are planning to subdivide or rezone their properties.
Divisive debate preceeded council’s decision. While its staunchest supporters such as Mayor Richard Atwell framed it as a necessary corrective, opponents such as Coun. Dean Murdock predicted that the temporary suspension merely serves as a prelude to the EDPA’s division demise, a charge rejected by others, such as Couns. Colin and Fred Haynes, who emphasized the temporary nature of the suspension. Council also moved forward to permanently exclude 29 properties
Consultants representing Diamond Head at Thursday’s open house were, unsurprisingly, aware of these developments, but refused to comment, citing their company’s role as a neutral third-party.
Members of council also declined to attend the hearing, citing statutory requirements in light of pending votes concerning the EDPA.
Thursday’s open house, however, offered members of the public a chance a comment on the review process so far, with many familiar faces surveying the 13 boards placed around the edge of small gymnasium.
The boards covered nine topic areas and asked attendees to offer feedback on a wide range of policy options by filling out a survey which is also available online. Each of the boards also included a section that described some of the findings that the review had gathered.
Presented topics also covered the familiar. One of the boards, for example, asked attendees whether Saanich’s EDPA should come with a requirement for restoration, and if so, to what extent. Other questions concerning buffers and setbacks were of technical nature.
The open house also allowed attendees to compare and contrast Saanich’s EDPA bylaw with the bylaws of nine other communities, including the Vancouver Island jurisdictions of Langford, Nanaimo, Campbell River and the Cowichan Valley Regional District, as well as Kelowna. Saanich officials frequently cite the Okanagan city to justify local policies because of its comparable size.
A comparative study finds Saanich’s EDPA does not stand apart from the rest. Saanich — like seven other jurisdictions — relies almost exclusively on available mapping to identity ESAs. Saanich — like six other jurisdictions — also embeds its EDPA in its Official Community Plan, as opposed to a comprehensive science-based biodiversity conservation strategy.
On other issues, Saanich splits with other communities. For example, five out of nine surveyed communities always require a report from a Qualified Environmental Professional to verify EDPA boundaries and recommend mitigation measures in case of a development permit application. Saanich falls among four communities that require QEP reports
Results of the open house coupled with the online survey and previous research will help shape Diamond Head’s final report expected to arrive sometime in June.
The consultant has already interviewed members of council, staff and various stakeholders, including proponents and opponents of the EDPA, biologists and other professionals.
