Through the Looking Glass: How Saanich Politicians and Staff are in the Process of Disabling the Local Area Plans Without the Public Realizing it.

Through the Looking Glass: How Saanich Politicians and Staff are in the Process of Disabling the Local Area Plans Without the Public Realizing it.

The last chance to retain the Local Area Plans in the Official Community Plan, is likely to take place next month in April.

Sasha Izard
March 7, 2024

In a recent article, I showed how loopholes being placed into the new Official Community Plan (OCP) of Saanich are being used to ensure that Saanich’s Local Area Plans (LAPs) will be rendered powerless, if passed.

This is happening without the vast majority of Saanich’s public even realizing it. This is being done in a way, as obscure and confusing as possible; that at times even the politicians and staff themselves seem to be confused about it. The Residents Associations which receive funding from Saanich have been as quiet as a mouse on the issue, despite the profound and dire implications of their Local Area Plans being disabled on their communities and environment.

Rather than just openly tell the public that their Local Area Plans are being rendered powerless, veiled Orwellian newspeak euphemisms have been employed. One such euphemism used by the mayor is “decoupling” the LAPs from the OCP.

Despite that, this is being pushed through with great rapidity. The public’s last chance at offering input to change the course of this has been said will take place at the time of the third reading of the new proposed OCP, which is thought to take place next month in April and will be the last chance for a public hearing on the proposed OCP. This is despite that Saanich isn’t required to update its OCP until December 31st, 2025.

Map of Saanich’s Local Area Plans from the District’s Website:

In a Capital Daily article from December 14, 2022 titled: “How changing a planning oddity in Saanich could speed up housing approvals, Mayor Murdock proposed exploring the “decoupling” of the LAPs from the OCP. He was followed in the article by the developer Luke Mari, who has been aggressively promoting pre-zoning, a libertarian dream, whereby profit-hungry developers can get rezonings approved without public approval to potentially any level, in some versions.

Mari has promoted pre-zoning through the Urban Development Institute (UDI), a lobby for development and real estate, which has also been pushing pre-zoning for many years. Mari has also pushed a narrative that the Local Area Plans are out of date, as has Scott Dutchak head of UDI member Habitat for Humanity Victoria. Dutchak has had much experience with real estate, including having worked for a REIT for a number of years and having worked for Telus in the area of real estate.

In January of 2023, the University of Victoria hosted a Capital Daily event on campus, which was to consist of a dialogue between Luke Mari and Scott Goodmanson Langford’s new mayor.

As one Saanich resident who attended the event after wrote: “As the conversation progressed, Luke took full advantage of the spotlight. He took every opportunity, to tell the audience that the Saanich Local Area Plans were out of date.“

Mari’s company Aryze Developments has worked on the massive Telus Ocean project[i] on Douglas Street in the City of Victoria, that many critics at the time pointed out did not fit the City’s designated heritage area.

UDI development/real estate lobby members Telus and Aryze have also proposed a building in Saanich in Gordon Head along Feltham[ii] that goes against its Local Area Plan, so to suggest that Mari does not have vested interests in calling the Local Area Plans out of date would be a long shot.

Saanich Councillor Colin Plant in particular, has taken on the line that the local area plans are out of date.

Luke Mari and Scott Dutchak were both on Saanich’s Housing Strategy Task Force[iii], along with Greg Gillespie, who was on the UDI Board of Directors and who also worked for UDI member company Mike Geric Construction.

Dutchak’s position on the Task Force was “Real-estate or financial representative”.

Last year at a 2023 Saanich Committee of the Whole, while giving a presentation as Habitat for Humanity CEO, he blamed “Nimbyism” for much of Saanich’s housing issues, something that he was criticized for by Councillor Judy Brownoff.

More recently Dutchak spoke in profound praise of the new proposed OCP at the February 26, 2024 council meeting and noted also with praise at the meeting, that a number of the initiatives being put into the proposed plan, had been proposed earlier by the Housing Strategy Task Force, which he neglected to mention that he had served on.

On the Task Force, Mari along with Greg Gillespie, held the same position as each other. The two were labelled: “Building/Development sector representatives”.

Leo Spalteholz, a real estate analyst, who along with Mari has frequently been brought forward by the media as a “housing expert” and “housing advocate”, was on the Task Force as one of the “Housing advocate representatives”. Like Dutchak, Spalteholz has also blamed ‘Nimbys’ for Saanich housing issues, while speaking at a council meeting last.

The “Academic representative with expertise in urban economics” on the Task Force was none other than Mark Holland, who a longtime ‘instructor’ at the UDI, has been the Dean/Head of Faculty at the UDI Capital Region development/real estate lobby, that Saanich at the time had become a paying member of. Passed by a council decision, the district had also issued councillors a $500 allowance if they so choose to be ‘educated’ there.

Also on the Task Force was Kaely Wiseman and Eleni Gibson, who at the time of writing work for the UDI member company “Wiser Projects” that has proposed a massive tower that would overlook Christ Church Cathedral. One Saanich Councillor at the time of the Task Force’s formation, Rebecca Mersereau found work with Wiser Projects after she left council in 2022.

All three elected officials that left Saanich found work after with UDI member companies. Fred Haynes, who was mayor of Saanich, lost his re-election bid in 2022 by a mere 152 votes. He found work after with Cielo Carbon Solutions, a subsidiary of UDI member Cielo Properties, which has interests mostly in the City of Victoria but also one proposed project in Saanich in the Tillicum Area.

Councillor Ned Taylor, who promoted adding density to the very end in Cadboro Bay, when its Local Area Plan update was in progress; found work after with Geric Construction, as a community engagement representative. This is something I encountered last fall, when Geric Construction bought up the Broad View United Church in Cadboro Bay. I saw Taylor answering questions from the public regarding their proposed redevelopment plans, as he stood in front of a coroplast board with information about the proposed project on it, while wearing a Geric Construction tag on his shirt.

The Council Representatives on the Saanich Housing Strategy Task Force included Councillor Zac de Vries (Chair) and Councillor Karen Harper (Vice-Chair).

A Local Government Election Contributions search[iv] reveals the name Geric on thousands of dollars of campaign contributions, including to the overwhelming majority (6 out of 9) of those on Saanich Council for their election-bids last term, which began in 2018. These included Councillors, Zac De Vries, Ned Taylor, Fred Haynes, Rebecca Mersereau, Susan Brice and Colin Plant.

Mike Geric Construction’s name was also on $3000 of campaign donations for Councillor Harper’s successful by-election campaign, the previous year in 2017. She was also re-elected to Saanich Council in 2018, taking the number of elected officials in Saanich that had received donations with the name Geric on it to 7 out of 9 on council at the time.

In 2014, Ed Geric donated $500 to the re-election campaign of Councillor Dean Murdock, who is now Saanich’s Mayor.

Having provided some significant background on some often-overlapping interests; the narrative that the Local Area Plans are out of the date deserves great question and close scrutiny. The narrative was pushed by those from the development/real estate industries, who have had interests in upzoning, and the line has since become adopted by elected officials to the point that it is being used as justification to remove the LAPs from the OCP bylaw altogether, thus disabling their binding status. This deserves noting, to say the least.

—————————————————————————————————

Now it is March 2024, and Council and Staff have indicated that the third reading of the OCP will take place sometime next month. This has been said to be the last opportunity for a public hearing on the new OCP. The problem is that the vast majority of the public are completely unaware that the disabling or “decoupling” of the Local Area Plans from the OCP is also going to be on the table at that time.

To even figure out that this is taking place, seems to require a surreal journey through the looking glass, through a series of reflecting halls full of ‘smoke and mirrors’, that leaves not only myself and numerous members of the public confused, but at times it seems even the elected officials and staff themselves are confused.

In the recent article already mentioned, I showed a dialogue between Councillor Plant and a staffer at Saanich Council on the issue of inconsistencies in the new proposed OCP, why these inconsistencies are not being resolved, and about how and why is the new proposed OCP being made “supreme” over the Local Area Plans.

Afterward I engaged in dialogue through email with both the staffer and also Councillor Plant by email in an attempt for myself to make sense out of it all.

The following below are the dialogues.

The first email dialogue was between myself and the staffer who had spoken at the council meeting:

—————————————————————————————————

Hi Cam,

During [the Feb 26, 2024] council meeting in regard to item f3 on the agenda when questioned by Councillor Plant, you said: “One of the decisions that council made was to remove the Local Area Plans from the OCP bylaw, hence really giving that primacy to the Official Community Plan”

What decision was this and when did it take place?

Thank you,
Sasha Izard

—————————————————————————————————

Hi Sasha,

The decision to remove the LAPs from the OCP Bylaw was made on August 14, 2023. Please see motion below. Here is a link to the meeting agenda and minutes.

MOVED by Councillor Harper and Seconded by Councillor Plant: “That it be recommended that Council:

1. Receive the Official Community Plan Phase 2 Engagement Summary Report for information;

2. Direct staff to prepare a new Official Community Plan bylaw which includes the updated General Plan and the following appendices: the Uptown Douglas Plan, the Shelbourne Valley Action Plan, the Cordova Bay Village Sub-Area Plan, the Cadboro Bay Village Sub-Area Plan, and the Development Permit Area Guidelines; and

3. Direct staff to:

a) Assess existing Local Area Plan housing and land use content;

b) Bring back recommendations on potential revisions for Council’s consideration; and

c) Bring forward the existing Local Area Plans for approval by Council resolution

Please let me know if you need any additional information.

—————————————————————————————————

Hi Cam,

Thank you very much for that information, but perhaps I’m missing something?

I don’t understand how that motion equates to being “One of the decisions that council made was to remove the Local Area Plans from the OCP bylaw, hence really giving that primacy to the Official Community Plan”

How does that motion result in removing the Local Area Plans from the OCP bylaw?

Thank you,
Sasha

—————————————————————————————————

HI Sasha,

The motion identifies what would be included in the Bylaw (just main OCP and Centre, Corridor and Village Plans) and that existing LAPs would be adopted by resolution instead of Bylaw. Here is the relevant part of the motion: “Bring forward the existing Local Area Plans for approval by Council resolution”

Note that the LAPs have historically been part of the OCP Bylaw.

I hope this clarifies things, please let me know if you have any follow-up questions.

—————————————————————————————————

Hi Cam,

Were the LAPs brought forward for approval by Council Resolution?

Thank you,
Sasha

—————————————————————————————————

Hi Sasha,

The LAPs will be brought forward for adoption by resolution as part of consideration of the OCP Bylaw at public hearing. Likely date for that is April 30^th. Currently the LAPs remain as part of the 2008 OCP Bylaw.

—————————————————————————————————

Hi Cam,

So does that mean that the Local Area Plans are essentially non-binding until then?

—————————————————————————————————

Hi Sasha,

The LAPs are part of the OCP Bylaw, meaning they have bylaw status. They would no longer have bylaw once adopted by resolution.

Happy to talk this through if that is easier.

Cam

[Saanich Planning Number Added]

Hi Cam,

Then I take it by your comments that the OCP is not presently supreme in its relation to the Local Area Plans?

As the OCP Bylaw in effect is the 2008 OCP Bylaw from your recent previous statements, and as the Local Area Plans are a part of the OCP Bylaw, then to say that the OCP is supreme in its relation to the LAPs would not be correct. Do I have that right?

After all being a part of the OCP as the LAPs currently are, how could the OCP be supreme in relation to itself?

“The LAPs are part of the OCP Bylaw, meaning they have bylaw status. They would no longer have bylaw once adopted by resolution.”

Why would adopting the LAPs by resolution have the effect of removing them from the OCP bylaw?

When I read the motion from last August that you previously quoted, I see nothing about removing the LAPs from the OCP bylaw.

What is the precise line from that motion that directs the removal of the Local Area Plans from the OCP Bylaw?

“One of the decisions that council made was to remove the Local Area Plans from the OCP bylaw, hence really giving that primacy to the Official Community Plan”

On the one hand you have said that council made a decision to remove the LAPs from the OCP Bylaw, then after, you have told me that this hasn’t taken place yet. Almost 8 months after a supposed decision was made, they are still awaiting a vote on a resolution. Why is that?

Perhaps it would be more accurately worded that council made a motion to potentially remove the LAPs from the OCP Bylaw? I am asking you that question, while noting however that I am still awaiting an explanation of how that motion from last August that you quoted equates even to directing a potential removal of the LAPs from the OCP Bylaw.

Once again, I understand a council resolution, as a sort of non-binding vision statement, but I cannot see how at the same time that equates to removing the LAPs from the OCP Bylaw and thus making them non-binding.

Hopefully you can remove my confusion.

Thank you again,
Sasha Izard

—————————————————————————————————

Hi Sasha,

Please see responses below:

“Then I take it by your comments that the OCP is not presently supreme in its relation to the Local Area Plans?”

You are correct in that currently the LAPs have the same status as the OCP (general plan), as they are all part of the OCP Bylaw. They are meant be considered as a whole.

“Why would adopting the LAPs by resolution have the effect of removing them from the OCP bylaw?”

Once the new OCP is adopted (with only Centre, Corridor and Village Plans attached), the LAPs would no longer be part of the Bylaw. Adopting the LAPs by resolution would make them Council policy, but not give them bylaw status

“What is the precise line from that motion that directs the removal of the Local Area Plans from the OCP Bylaw?”

This line indicates what will be included in the new OCP Bylaw “Direct staff to prepare a new Official Community Plan bylaw which includes the updated General Plan and the following appendices: the Uptown Douglas Plan, the Shelbourne Valley Action Plan, the Cordova Bay Village Sub-Area Plan, the Cadboro Bay Village Sub-Area Plan, and the Development Permit Area Guidelines Note that LAPs are not proposed to be included as part of the new bylaw”

“On the one hand you have said that council made a decision to remove the LAPs from the OCP Bylaw, then after, you have told me that this hasn’t taken place yet. Almost 8 months after a supposed decision was made, they are still awaiting a vote on a resolution. Why is that?”

The change is linked to the overall adoption of the updated OCP. That process is proceeding through the final adoption stages.

“Once again, I understand a council resolution, as a sort of non-binding vision statement, but I cannot see how at the same time that equates to removing the LAPs from the OCP Bylaw and thus making them non-binding.”

Policies adopted by resolution are still valid policy, however, in instances of direct conflict with the OCP Bylaw, the bylaw would take precedence.

—————————————————————————————————

Hi Cam,

Thank you again for your response.

“Once the new OCP is adopted (with only Centre, Corridor and Village Plans attached), the LAPs would no longer be part of the Bylaw. Adopting the LAPs by resolution would make them Council policy, but not give them bylaw status”

If at the final council meeting on the resolution, council decided not to adopt the LAPs by resolution, would the LAPs then remain in Bylaw form?

[What is the precise line from that motion that directs the removal of the Local Area Plans from the OCP Bylaw?]

“This line indicates what will be included in the new OCP Bylaw “Direct staff to prepare a new Official Community Plan bylaw which includes the updated General Plan and the following appendices: the Uptown Douglas Plan, the Shelbourne Valley Action Plan, the Cordova Bay Village Sub-Area Plan, the Cadboro Bay Village Sub-Area Plan, and the Development Permit Area Guidelines Note that LAPs are not proposed to be included as part of the new bylaw”

I cannot see how that motion directs the removal of the Local Area Plans from the OCP Bylaw, as it does not call to disclude them from the Bylaw. What I mean by that is that if you say you want to include something in something, that does not imply that you are going to disclude something else.

Say I am making a sandwich for example, something that has a number of ingredients. If I say that I am going to include a pickle in the sandwich. That is not the same as saying that I will not put lettuce in the sandwich as well. The same concept applies for any other recipe. To say you will include something in a recipe does not necessarily indicate that you will disclude something from it.

“The change is linked to the overall adoption of the updated OCP. That process is proceeding through the final adoption stages.”

From what I understand the new proposed OCP does not have to be completed until December 31st 2024. Why is the process proceeding then through the final adoption stages well over a year and a half before that?

“Policies adopted by resolution are still valid policy, however, in instances of direct conflict with the OCP Bylaw, the bylaw would take precedence.”

As I pointed out on the recent Feb 26, 2024 council meeting, this will have the effect of essentially nullifying the power of the Local Area Plans, as any part of the new proposed OCP, which clearly has a bias towards more upzoning, construction, and a lack of environmental protections; can then be used to override the Local Area Plans. Declaring the Local Area Plans policy at this point, would be akin to reducing them to mere wishful thinking.

Thank you again,

Sasha

—————————————————————————————————

The second email dialogue took place between myself and Councillor Plant:

—————————————————————————————————

Hello Councillor Plant,

At last Tuesday’s Council meeting (Feb 26, 2024) during your dialogue with a staffer, you said referring to the Local Area Plans “those are largely out of date.”

Why do you consider the Local Area Plans to be largely be out of date? If they are out of date as you have supposed, would the correct approach be to update them and thus improve upon them, or to remove their binding status from the OCP Bylaw, thus rendering them legally non-binding and thus essentially powerless, as plans that would no longer be required to be adhered to?

Thank you,
Sasha Izard

—————————————————————————————————

Hello Mr. Izard,

Thanks for your email. You ask some good questions here and if needed, I’m happy to follow up with a phone call.

The answers require some review of the actions from last two terms of Council.

In 2017 Council received a staff report detailing a plan to update the LAPS over 8 years. We agreed to that process. And it seemed reasonable to start the process of LAP renewals.

However, a newly elected Council made the decision early in its 2018-2022 term to instead look at instead pursuing a review/creation of Corridors, Villages and Centres Plans instead of LAP updates over several years.

I believe the intention of Council at the time was to ensure the review of where development would occur would be in the areas where we expected to see most of the development occur (villages, corridors, centres). It was also viewed as being faster and would hopefully ensure the greatest amount of area where development would occur would be reviewed in these new planning documents.

As to why I state they are out of date; some LAP documents are from over 20 years ago and are older than the current OCP (2008). In my mind it is more appropriate to update the OCP first and use the LAPS as informing documents, not as bylaw appendixes that may be in conflict with the OCP.

Again, thanks for the question.

Happy to discuss further if you wish.

Sincerely,

Colin Plant

Councillor / CRD Board Chair

District of Saanich

—————————————————————————————————

Hello Councillor Plant,

Thank you for response. I appreciate it.

“In 2017 Council received a staff report detailing a plan to update the LAPS over 8 years. We agreed to that process. And it seemed reasonable to start the process of LAP renewals.”

8 years would be 2025. By 2025, the LAPs are likely going to be rendered powerless by a new OCP which based on indications will likely will be passed in 2024.

“However, a newly elected Council made the decision early in its 2018-2022 term to instead look at instead pursuing a review/creation of Corridors, Villages and Centres Plans instead of LAP updates over several years.”

Cadboro Bay had more than one LAP update process during that time period that culminated in a late 2022 council decision to keep most of the existing LAP intact, with only minor changes added. Did other LAP update processes happen during this time?

Why would council be undermining the LAPs at the same time as expensive update processes were taking place (at the very least in Cadboro Bay)? How can Cadboro Bay’s Local Area Plan be out of date, when the update process concluded only just over a year and a half ago in August of 2022, and the conclusion then was to retain most of the already existing plan?

It is notable that the years 2020-2022, the public were mostly out of the chambers due to the pandemic. Why would the council from that time be undermining the Local Area Plans, without the public being able to provide proper input at council?

“I believe the intention of Council at the time was to ensure the review of where development would occur would be in the areas where we expected to see most of the development occur (villages, corridors, centres). It was also viewed as being faster and would hopefully ensure the greatest amount of area where development would occur would be reviewed in these new planning documents.”

Is fast-tracking development, more important than proper democratic input from the public on the future of their communities?

“As to why I state they are out of date; some LAP documents are from over 20 years ago and are older than the current OCP (2008).”

Which goes back to my original question:

If they are out of date as you have supposed, would the correct approach be to update them and thus improve upon them, or to remove their binding status from the OCP Bylaw, thus rendering them legally non-binding and thus essentially powerless, as plans that would no longer be required to be adhered to?

“In my mind it is more appropriate to update the OCP first and use the LAPS as informing documents, not as bylaw appendixes that may be in conflict with the OCP.”

I note that you used the phrase “In my mind,” referring to your mind. I am asking what is in your mind regarding this. How have you come to the conclusion that “it is more appropriate to update the OCP first and use the LAPs as informing documents”?

If bylaw appendixes “may be in conflict with the OCP”, as you claim, are the bylaw appendixes legally binding? If they are appendixes to the OCP, are they not part of the OCP?

Thank you again,
Sasha Izard

—————————————————————————————————

In the following email from Cllr. Plant, he bolded the text that he was adding in response to the previous dialogue.

Hello Councillor Plant,

Thank you for response. I appreciate it.

“In 2017 Council received a staff report detailing a plan to update the LAPS over 8 years. We agreed to that process. And it seemed reasonable to start the process of LAP renewals.”

8 years would be 2025. By 2025, the LAPs are likely going to be rendered powerless by a new OCP which based on indications will likely will be passed in 2024.

The report was written in 2017 but showed work on LAPS going from 2026. The work on updating LAPs beyond Cordova and Cadboro Bay was largely halted in early 2018.

“However, a newly elected Council made the decision early in its 2018-2022 term to instead look at instead pursuing a review/creation of Corridors, Villages and Centres Plans instead of LAP updates over several years.”

Cadboro Bay had more than one LAP update process during that time period that culminated in a late 2022 council decision, to keep most of the existing LAP intact with only minor changes added. Did other LAP update processes happen during this time?

I believe only Cordova Bay and Cadboro Bay were updated. Next up were Quadra/North Quadra but I do not believe they went ahead once new direction was provided in early 2018.

Why would council be undermining the LAPs both at the same time as expensive update processes were taking place (at the very least in Cadboro Bay)? How can Cadboro Bay’s Local Area Plan be out of date, when the update process concluded only just over a year and a half ago in August of 2022, and the conclusion then was to retain most of the already existing plan?

I believe Council felt that once the process had started it would not be appropriate to halt the update as resources had been spent and people had been engaged in the Local Area Plan updates. And because Council wanted to have revisions and more consultation it added to the timelines.

I would agree that as a result of the updates to the Cordova and Cadboro Bay LAPs they are the only local area plans that are not outdated.

It is notable that the years 2020-2022, the public were mostly out of the chambers due to the pandemic. Why would the council from that time be undermining the Local Area Plans, without the public being able to provide proper input at council?

The decision to move to Centres, Villages and Corridors was made prior to COVID. Council did hear from people on both sides of the issue and made a decision prior to COVID.

There was a clear understanding when we moved to this approach for future planning we would not be starting any new LAPs.

“I believe the intention of Council at the time was to ensure the review of where development would occur would be in the areas where we expected to see most of the development occur (villages, corridors, centres). It was also viewed as being faster and would hopefully ensure the greatest amount of area where development would occur would be reviewed in these new planning documents.”

Is fast-tracking development, more important than proper democratic input from the public on the future of their communities?

No.

Council decided it would be most effective to create Centre, Corridor and Village plans where most of the development was likely to go rather than doing the LAP update over a longer period of time where little change was likely to occur. Simply put focussing on the areas where development was more likely to be appropriate (centres, corridors and villages) made more sense than doing entire Local Area Plans where certain parts of the plans were unlikely needed to be updated. By proceeding this way we have signficantly reduced the time to update our planning documents.

“As to why I state they are out of date; some LAP documents are from over 20 years ago and are older than the current OCP (2008).”

Which goes back to my original question:

If they are out of date as you have supposed, would the correct approach be to update them and thus improve upon them, or to remove their binding status from the OCP Bylaw, thus rendering them legally non-binding and thus essentially powerless, as plans that would no longer be required to be adhered to?

I do not agree that taking the time to update them all was the appropriate way to go.

I believe the Centre, Corridors and Village approach was more appropriate as was the OCP update. The LAPs are now going to be informing documents, not ones that could potentially legally be in opposition to the same OCP to which they are appendices therefore creating a sense of conflicting plans.

It is my opinion an OCP is the higher document and all plans need to be in alignment with the OCP.

“In my mind it is more appropriate to update the OCP first and use the LAPS as informing documents, not as bylaw appendixes that may be in conflict with the OCP.”

I note that you used the phrase “In my mind,” referring to your mind. I am asking what is in your mind regarding this. How have you come to the conclusion that “it is more appropriate to update the OCP first and use the LAPs as informing documents”?

Timeliness and likelihood of the changes. It was going to take 8 years to update the LAPs. With the current approach we have been much quicker and responded to the need to be ready for development that is coming and needed.

As previously stated the time to update all the LAPs as well as the strong likelihood there would be less change to the land use designations made me believe it was more appropriate to proceed with the OCP update.

If bylaw appendixes “may be in conflict with the OCP”, as you claim, are the bylaw appendixes legally binding? If they are appendixes to the OCP, are they not part of the OCP?

As appendixes they are part of the OCP. As informing documents they are not legally binding.

—————————————————————————————————

My response to Cllr. Plant is below. I left Cllr. Plant’s previous quoted comments bolded.

Hello Councillor Plant,

“The report was written in 2017 but showed work on LAPS going from 2026.

Why not start updating the LAPs from 2017, or 2018, why start again in 2026? Or did you mean to say that the work on them would go to 2026?

The work on updating LAPs beyond Cordova and Cadboro Bay was largely halted in early 2018.”

“I believe only Cordova Bay and Cadboro Bay were updated. Next up were Quadra/North Quadra but I do not believe they went ahead once new direction was provided in early 2018.“

Thank you for that chronology.

[Why would council be undermining the LAPs both at the same time as expensive update processes were taking place (at the very least in Cadboro Bay)? How can Cadboro Bay’s Local Area Plan be out of date, when the update process concluded only just over a year and a half ago in August of 2022, and the conclusion then was to retain most of the already existing plan?]

I believe Council felt that once the process had started it would not be appropriate to halt the update as resources had been spent and people had been engaged in the Local Area Plan updates. And because Council wanted to have revisions and more consultation it added to the timelines.

Why would council want revisions and more consultation added at such a late stage, only to propose removing the LAPs from the OCP Bylaw altogether on the basis that they are all out of date?

Pardon if it looks like to me, that council did not get the results it wanted from the communities, whose input it sought at significant cost; and has decided instead, to chuck the LAPs out of the OCP instead to get what council wants, rather than the communities affected asked for.

“I would agree that as a result of the updates to the Cordova and Cadboro Bay LAPs they are the only local area plans that are not outdated.”

The Logical take from that then would be that the only reason that the other LAPs are out of date as you claim, would be that Saanich Council let them fall out of date by only updating the Cadboro Bay and Cordova Bay area plans, while putting the others on hold.

Now that council has let them fall out of date, the solution now being provided is to ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’ as the proverbial saying goes, by taking the Local Area Plans out of the OCP, including those of Cadboro Bay and Cordova Bay; even though you just admitted that they are not outdated.

How does that make logical sense? On the one hand you are saying the LAPs are out of date and should thus be taken out of the OCP. On the other hand you are now saying that some are not out of date. Yet, you are proposing to remove even these not-out-of-date ones as you have said from the OCP as well, on the same basis that they are out of date, (having said the LAPs are out of date) even though you just admitted that these are not out of date.

In other words, not all LAPs are out of date as you have now admitted, but you are proposing that all LAPs be removed, because as you have stated the LAPs are out of date.

If these two LAPs at least are not out of date which you have now stated, then why should they be removed from the OCP bylaw?

The decision to move to Centres, Villages and Corridors was made prior to COVID. Council did hear from people on both sides of the issue and made a decision prior to COVID.

Which decision was this? Did that decision include a decision to render the local area plans obsolete?

There was a clear understanding when we moved to this approach for future planning we would not be starting any new LAPs.

Did you mean to say that council would not be updating LAPs anymore (with the exception of the two which were updated after), rather than starting any new LAPs as you said?

“The decision to move to Centres, Villages and Corridors was made prior to COVID. Council did hear from people on both sides of the issue and made a decision prior to COVID.”

Which decision was that exactly?

[Is fast-tracking development, more important than proper democratic input from the public on the future of their communities?]

No.

Council decided it would be most effective to create Centre, Corridor and Village plans where most of the development was likely to go rather than doing the LAP update over a longer period of time where little change was likely to occur. Simply put focussing on the areas where development was more likely to be appropriate (centres, corridors and villages) made more sense than doing entire Local Area Plans where certain parts of the plans were unlikely needed to be updated. By proceeding this way we have signficantly reduced the time to update our planning documents.

Following this logic, if the council decided that the centres, corridors, and villages needed densification and thus the LAPs could be overridden in those areas with these new documents, then why would the Local Area Plans that are outside of these areas be taken out of the OCP?

If council felt that it was too much time and resources to bother updating the entire LAPs, because as you said “it made more sense than doing entire Local Area Plans where certain parts of the plans were unlikely needed [sic] to be updated”, then how can you then turn around and say the areas outside the centres villages and corridors are out of date?

The reasoning for not doing the updates in those areas, was because as you noted much of those areas would not need updating. It simply does not make sense to then remove those areas of the LAPs that are outside of the CCV areas under the premise that the Local Area Plans are out of date.

[If they are out of date as you have supposed, would the correct approach be to update them and thus improve upon them, or to remove their binding status from the OCP Bylaw, thus rendering them legally non-binding and thus essentially powerless, as plans that would no longer be required to be adhered to?]

I do not agree that taking the time to update them all was the appropriate way to go.

It is my opinion an OCP is the higher document and all plans need to be in alignment with the OCP.

I think that you are placing the cart before the horse here, or jumping the starting line before the signal went off. While it may be your opinion that an OCP is the higher document and that all plans need to be in alignment with the OCP. I have been informed otherwise by city planning staff.

I wrote to a city planner: “Then I take it by your comments that the OCP is not presently supreme in its relation to the Local Area Plans?”

The planner replied: “You are correct in that currently the LAPs have the same status as the OCP (general plan), as they are all part of the OCP Bylaw. They are meant be considered as a whole.”

While Councillor Plant, you may prefer it to be the case that the OCP is the higher document and it may be changed to be that in the future, saying that it is the higher document (present tense) does not appear to be accurate, as can be seen from the staff response on this issue.

Specifically referring to your comment that in your opinion “all plans need to be in alignment with the OCP.”

Would you say that the local area plans are not in alignment with the current (2008) OCP?

[I note that you used the phrase “In my mind,” referring to your mind. I am asking what is in your mind regarding this. How have you come to the conclusion that “it is more appropriate to update the OCP first and use the LAPs as informing documents”?]

Timeliness and likelihood of the changes. It was going to take 8 years to update the LAPs.

With the current approach we have been much quicker and responded to the need to be ready for development that is coming and needed.

As I previously noted, the 8 year update process, if started in 2017 would have concluded around 2025-2026.

From what I have seen, it appears Saanich is not required to finish its OCP update until Dec 31, 2025

I can’t see some great time savings in operation.

“responded to the need to be ready for development that is coming and needed. “

By saying that you need to be ready for development that is coming and needed, you are repeatedly framing construction as a “need”. Demand is different from a need. Do you understand the difference?

The vast majority of construction being proposed for the future is for the purposes of profitting from market-based demand. That is not the same as fulfilling needs. Do you with the sort of planning you have been discussing, have a timeline when the perceived needs you have mentioned will be fulfilled?

What will fulfilling those claimed “needs” look like. Will it look like housing affordability for everyone, or for only a select few?

Is ecological protection in what is left of the urban forest not a pressing need? If not, why should ecological protections in Local Area Plans be overridden to satisfy a predominantly for-profit development agenda?

“As previously stated the time to update all the LAPs as well as the strong likelihood there would be less change to the land use designations made me believe it was more appropriate to proceed with the OCP update. “

Stating “the time is to update all the LAPs”, makes no sense when the update process could have been started 7 years ago, instead of pausing most of them. If that had been done then we would be approaching the year of completion next year when the OCP update is due; instead of saying they are obsolete (something if true, the council of 2017 which you were on would then have to take responsibility for).

What I see you as really indicating is that the Local Area Plans are in the way of the sort of level of construction you would prefer.

Who benefits in that scenario by then removing the Local Area Plans from the OCP bylaw? The communities whose input they are made of and the environment in them that they have sought to protect, or the construction industry that is ever-seeking to generate quick profits from them?

[If bylaw appendixes “may be in conflict with the OCP”, as you claim, are the bylaw appendixes legally binding? If they are appendixes to the OCP, are they not part of the OCP?]

As appendixes they are part of the OCP. As informing documents they are not legally binding.

OK, so just to make this clear, the LAPs are currently bylaw appendixes to the OCP and are thus legally binding.

You want to make them not legally binding by removing them from the appendixes to the OCP?

Do I have that correct?

Thank you again,
Sasha

—————————————————————————————————

Mr Izard

If you wish to continue this dialogue further, please consider requesting a phone call or a meeting.

-Yes I meant going to 2026.

-Your comment about the undermining is something I can understand the public perception. However in my mind the findings of the revised and updated LAPS will be useful while not being a part of the OCP.

-I would offer my opinion on this as each Councillor would have had their own opinion: Council was seeking revisions because they wanted the documents to have more flexibility for a diversity of housing opportunities than the initial drafts showed. I believe the initial draft local area plans would not have helped us meet our housing needs over time as they largely were preserving the status quo and not providing the flexibility a municipality should have. By switching to an OCP informed by LAPs approach I believe the District is making the right choice. You are welcome to disagree.

-The out of date LAPs were not in alignment to the OCP. Rather than constantly see situations arise where a proposal required an OCP amendment because of an old LAP I think it was prudent to move the LAPs to being informing documents not appendixes. You are welcome to disagree.

-In my opinion you are correct in suggesting that Council neglected to update LAPs for a long period of time after adoption of the OCP. I was not on Council and cannot address why they did not renew them earlier. I can only suspect their were competing priorities and they did what they thought was appropriate at the time.

-As the majority of the LAPs are out of date it makes sense to me to remove them. The recently updated ones will be useful reference documents and will be used to shape the future of the areas.

-It is my opinion LAPs should be reference documents and not part of a bylaw. The OCP should be the main document residents consider for the growth of our community. LAPs will help inform that vision but not as part of the Bylaw. I support the direction of Council. You are welcome to disagree.

-Council made a decision to move from LAP updates to the CCV process. If you want to find when and based on what report, please ask Legislative Services staff.

-The decision to remove LAPs from the bylaw was made more recently during the OCP review. it had nothing to do with the decision to pursue the CCV approach to planning.

-The updating of the LAPs suggested to go to the end of 2026 would not have been the same as updating the OCP. Updating the OCP would have taken more time. So to suggest there was no savings of time is based on comparing two different processes.

-You are correct in stating that currently the LAPs have the weight of being in the OCP bylaw. My assertion is that they will not likely following the OCP update. However, as you can likely appreciate (and in one case it was the situation) there can be a contradiction between the OCP and an LAP. When that is the case I consider the situation but would likely defer to the OCP as the higher document.

-I support removing the LAPs from being part of the OCP Bylaw.

If you want to continue this dialogue, I would prefer in person over a coffee or on the phone.

Or if you want to start a fresh email chain, please feel free to do that.

Sincerely,

Colin Plant

—————————————————————————————————

Hello Councillor Plant,

Thank you for your response,

“Your comment about the undermining is something I can understand the public perception. However in my mind the findings of the revised and updated LAPS will be useful while not being a part of the OCP.”

If the updated LAPs are useful, then why render them powerless by removing them from the OCP?

“I would offer my opinion on this as each Councillor would have had their own opinion: Council was seeking revisions because they wanted the documents to have more flexibility for a diversity of housing opportunities than the initial drafts showed. I believe the initial draft local area plans would not have helped us meet our housing needs over time as they largely were preserving the status quo and not providing the flexibility a municipality should have. By switching to an OCP informed by LAPs approach I believe the District is making the right choice. You are welcome to disagree.”

Why do you think prioritizing a construction agenda over the environment and rendering what the communities have asked for in the form of their local area plans powerless is the right choice?

You were elected to represent your constituents, were you not? If the constituents are having their input in the form of their community plans rendered powerless, are you serving their interests?

“The out of date LAPs were not in alignment to the OCP. Rather than constantly see situations arise where a proposal required an OCP amendment because of an old LAP I think it was prudent to move the LAPs to being informing documents not appendixes. You are welcome to disagree.”

You have just repeated that the LAPs were out of date, yet in our previous exchange you admitted that not all LAPs were out of date.

You also noted that most of the areas covered by the LAPs outside the Centers Corridors and Villages didn’t need updating. This is something that you provided as justification for not updating most of the LAPs.

How then can you say that the LAPs are out of date?

Continuing to repeat blanket statements that the LAPs are out of date is not showing the true picture regarding the LAPs even from your own statements in our discussion.

“The out of date LAPs were not in alignment to the OCP”

Once again, you appear to be putting the cart before the horse.

It is not that the LAPs are out of alignment with the OCP.

It is that council and staff are preparing a new OCP, which is out of alignment with the LAPs.

Why not align the new OCP being prepared with the LAPs? After all this is a democracy correct? and you as servants of the public should be following their vision, which the LAPs represent.

“In my opinion you are correct in suggesting that Council neglected to update LAPs for a long period of time after adoption of the OCP. I was not on Council and cannot address why they did not renew them earlier. I can only suspect their were competing priorities and they did what they thought was appropriate at the time.”

How can you say that you were not on council? You were elected in 2014.

2014 Election Results | District of Saanich

You have been on council for almost a decade. The report you spoke of was in 2017. The pausing of the updates for all, but 2 of the Local Area Plans took place, while you were on council.

Now you are saying that all, but 2 of the Local Area Plans are out of date and all the Local Area Plans should be disempowered by removing them from the OCP. What a surprise! You and the other councillors during that period were the ones responsible for preventing the LAPs from being updated and now you are turning around and saying they are out of date, and as a result should be removed from the OCP. If most are of the LAPs are out of date as you claim, it is only because yourself and other councillors that served with you, made it so that they would be.

By doing so, you and those councillors created a problem that didn’t need to exist (LAPs falling out of date), and the solution for that problem that you are providing, is to remove the Local Area Plans from the Official Community Plan wholesale.

“As the majority of the LAPs are out of date it makes sense to me to remove them”

“It is my opinion LAPs should be reference documents and not part of a bylaw. The OCP should be the main document residents consider for the growth of our community.”

What if the residents don’t want the sort of construction and urban forest removal that you call growth?

If they wanted that, wouldn’t they have put it in their Local Area Plans to begin with?

Shouldn’t the OCP represent the interests of the residents of Saanich and protecting its environment, rather than for the interests of growing profit margins for the construction and finance industries?

Shelbourne Valley right now is a good example of the sort of growth that is being rendered upon them. A lot of money is being made by private industry, as the municipality continues to grow its debt and growing its tax and utilities rates.

What are the residents of Saanich getting for this?

“LAPs will help inform that vision but not as part of the Bylaw.  I support the direction of Council. You are welcome to disagree.”

You could take any novel out of a bookstore, read it and say it helps inform your vision of growth and it would be just as binding as the Local Area Plans upon taking them out of bylaw.

I can see that the Local Area Plans are in the way of growth, well what sort of growth do you envision?

When should rural Saanich stop growing, by the time it becomes the next Manhattan? What is to be accomplished by all this growth that you think justifies removing the Local Area Plans?

Is years of democratic input in the form of Local Area Plans worth removing, just to keep the cranes running on time? On whose schedule and why?

“The decision to remove LAPs from the bylaw was made more recently during the OCP review.”

The LAPs have not been removed from the bylaw, because it still requires a final decision that would achieve that. From what I’ve been informed by staff, that step would be the formal adoption of the LAPs by council resolution. That has not taken place yet.

“The updating of the LAPs suggested to go to the end of 2026 would not have been the same as updating the OCP. Updating the OCP would have taken more time. So to suggest there was no savings of time is based on comparing two different processes.”

Why not just speed up the process of updating it? At some time between when you first joined council in 2014, instead of pausing them thus ensuring that most would not meet the time of the new OCP’s completion, council could have directed staff with the appropriate resources to update the LAPs on time.

“You are correct in stating that currently the LAPs have the weight of being in the OCP bylaw. My assertion is that they will not likely following the OCP update. However, as you can likely appreciate (and in one case it was the situation) there can be a contradiction between the OCP and an LAP. When that is the case I consider the situation but would likely defer to the OCP as the higher document.”

The OCP and LAPs are not currently separate documents. They are whole as staff confirmed. To say that the OCP is a higher document is not accurate.

You want to make the OCP a higher document, because as you have noted you prefer more construction (which you call growth), to the vision of the residents of Saanich, which formed their Local Area Plans.

“I support removing the LAPs from being part of the OCP Bylaw.”

Do you think that the public at large are aware that Local Area Plans are likely to be removed from the OCP bylaw?

Do you think that the public has adequately been informed of this, especially given that the final decision on this is likely to take place next month?

Thank you again,
Sasha

—————————————————————————————————

To conclude:

The process to render the Local Area Plans powerless by downgrading their status, appears to me to be a highly elaborate and incredibly vague shell-game engaged in by both Saanich politicians (Councillor Chambers being a noted exception, as she has repeatedly defended the Local Area Plans) and district staff, in which the public are for the most part unaware that this is taking place, even as their final chance at a public hearing on the new OCP will likely take place next month.

This process looks to me to be one of development interests being favoured in a new OCP against the interests of democracy. The Local Area Plans were formed by the communities in them over many years.

I predict that many developers and those associated with them and their lobbies, will show up in April at the Public Hearing and will be speaking in favour of the new OCP. I will also make a prediction that the UVIC Real Estate Club and those associated with the third-party electoral Organization Homes For Living that pushes development/real estate interests and which endorsed 6 out of 9 (including the Mayor) of those currently on council during the last election, are likely to show up speaking in favour of the new OCP.

At present I think that the general public in Saanich are barely aware that this is coming and what profound implications it will have in overturning many years of their input in shaping their communities.

If the Saanich public are to have any hope of retaining the Local Area Plans as bylaw in the new proposed OCP, they will likely have their last chance at saying so publicly at what looks like will be the third reading of the new proposed OCP next month.

Reducing the Local Area Plans from OCP bylaw to a resolution, reduces the LAPs to a mere facade, while in actuality turning vast swathes of the areas they covered into blank slates open for dense construction. This is nothing, but a land and zoning grab, and the environmental cost will be devastating. Much of Southern Vancouver Island’s unique eco-systems will be the victim of the consequences.

After all, a council resolution is as binding as a New Years resolution, and those pushing this are fully aware of it, hence precisely why they are pushing the LAPs in this direction. If there were any doubts that the intent is not to override the LAPs with the OCP, those doubts should have been dispelled at the council meeting on Feb 24, 2024, at which the intent was made clear to make the new proposed OCP supreme over the LAPs through inserting points into the OCP draft, as a means of ensuring this new hierarchy of power, when it comes to zoning.

This is not a trivial matter. It is a very serious one.

With the Local Area Plans, which contained decades of public input; including very recent public input in two of them, being disempowered and the public disempowered as well by being removed from vast amounts of public hearings due to BC Bill-44; zoning in Saanich will be reduced to the wild west, and what remains of the urban forest and its ecology, stands be decimated in the process.

Notes: