(see www.bclocalnews.com/fraser_valley/missioncityrecord/opinion/letters/44501207.html).

To the Editor,

When did time stop being of the essence?  Mission residents will recall the dizzying pace with which the plan for Silverdale’s Neighborhood One was created.  The Neighborhood Planning Advisory Committee had to double the frequency of its meetings to keep up with the haste.  Mission council had no time to address environment ministry concerns, passing the terms of reference for the environmental studies before ministry comments were received.  Council went as far as formally complaining to the provincial and federal government that the Ministry scientists were not reviewing genstar’s documents quickly enough.  Mission council also had no time to address the myriad of questions and concerns brought up by residents during the 8 day long public hearing including impacts to their wells, the consequences of demands on Mission’s already taxed city water supply, and the complete lack of a risk management analysis for the city. Instead, haste and hurry ruled the day culminating in a rush to pass third reading of the bylaws 3 days before Christmas.  Liberal MLA Randy Hawes defended the incumbent council’s haste and disregard for its citizens’ interests in an add, posted days before the municipal election, by promising everyone that genstar would pay for millions in amenities.   But then, just when the next step in planning required the developers to deliver commitments within 15 days of adoption of the bylaws, the essence of time appears to have ended.  Mission has confirmed that the developers failed to meet their first obligation under the Phased Development Agreement and are now months overdue. Clearly, the essence of time ended when it came to delivering what Mission council and Mr. Hawes promised on behalf of the developers.

Tracy Lyster

CAUSS

Citizens Against Urban Sprawl Society is issuing an alert to all BC residents concerned with responsible development planning and protection of the environment.  The province has introduced legislation which allows developers and municipalities to enter into 20 year legally binding Phased Development Agreements (PDAs).  If approved by the Inspector of Municipalities, 20 year PDAs guarantee zoning for developers regardless of what up to 6 future elected municipal councils deem to be in their community’s best interest.  The flawed PDA process overrides the will of the electorate and undermines the ability of democratically elected councils to respond to community needs.  The Mission test case proves that despite their long-term environmental, social and economic impacts, the approval of these PDAs is merely a rubber stamp process with no real accountability.  The Inspector recently approved a PDA between Mission and 2 major development corporations despite serious objections from both provincial and federal environment ministries whose concerns were not even mentioned in his approval (see ministry concerns dfo_oct_17_08, moe_oct_21_08).  The Inspector refused to accept public submissions prior to making his decision and refused to accept a legal opinion funded by West Coast Environmental Law. This legal opinion states the Mission PDA violates the Local Government Act and calls into question the business case for the massive development project (see jb-to-inspector).   It is no coincidence that Mission’s Director of Corporate Administration has since confirmed that the developers have already failed to meet their first important obligation under the PDA- to apply to register a no-build covenant on the property within 15 days of adoption of the agreement. This covenant was a critical component of the PDA designed to protect the public interest by ensuring compliance with density objectives and provision of conservation areas and parks.   Given his responsibility within government, it was shocking to read the Inspector state the approval “is not to be construed as representing provincial approval for the substance of the bylaw and its legality” (see inspector-approval).  Unless a more rigorous and transparent approval process is developed, PDAs could be passed all over the province leaving a long-term legacy of environmentally destructive and financially high-risk projects. To date, Kevin Krueger, Minister of Community Development, and local MLA Randy Hawes have not responded to CAUSS’s concerns with the PDA approval process. Mission residents will be paying close attention to this issue over the next few weeks. Concerned BC residents should email their local MLA, Minister Krueger, Premier Campbell, the BC Ombudsman and BC Auditor General to demand environmental ministry concerns and legal and technical issues be resolved before the province commits to any extended PDA timelines.

CAUSS reviewed the Inspector’s approval and submitted the following letter to the Minister of Community Development March 2/09.

Kevin Krueger 

Minister of Community Development                       

PO Box 9056 STN

PROV GOVT

Victoria BC

V8W 9E5

Dear Minister Krueger,

I am writing this letter to express our concern with the approval of the proposed 20-year phased development agreement (PDA) for the development of the South West Mission Urban Reserve by Dale Wall, Inspector of Municipalities, Feb 12. 2009.

The development associated with this PDA will have long-standing and irreversible impacts to the local community and area wildlife.  A high degree of cooperation is therefore required with the environmental ministries to ensure that species at risk and fish habitat is protected. We are very concerned that this approval will seriously undermine the position of the provincial Ministry of the Environment and federal Fisheries, both of whom have expressed concerns with the project and have asked for numerous revisions prior to adoption of the bylaws (see dfo.oct17/08 & moe.oct21/08).  Surprisingly, no reference to the ministries was made in the approval letter.  Ministry sign off must take place prior to zoning approval.

We are also very distressed that no mention of concerns raised by the public in the 8-day long public hearing was stated in the approval. There is no evidence in this approval if either the Inspector or the District of Mission considered the concerns of citizens.  Did the Inspector even receive a staff report associated with the public hearing? 

Original criteria to evaluate the PDA presented by the Inspector included the degree of community support for the proposal and review of the public hearing.  However we see no response or acknowledgement in this approval letter of the legitimate community concerns, the environmental concerns, or the overwhelming opposition to the proposal.

In addition to these significant omissions, the approval contained a number of inaccurate statements.

Mr. Wall’s letter states his approval of the PDA was in part based on ensuring adequate public consultation was undertaken and that the development is consistent with the long-term planning done by the municipality.

Public consultation for the PDA involved a single public information meeting which was poorly advertised and therefore poorly attended.  There were no opportunities for public input into the PDA prior to the final public hearing. The Neighbourhood Planning Advisory Committee (NPAC), a committee of citizens appointed by the District of Mission to contribute to the planning of the proposal, never reviewed the PDA.

Mr. Wall stated he reviewed the effort made by the District of Mission (District) to undertake its own legal review and risk assessment so that the District Council was able to make an informed decision. However Mission staff revealed at the public hearing that no risk assessment document, or file exists, and no formal risk assessment had been done.  Therefore is Mr. Wall’s conclusion that no risk assessment for a project of this magnitude is acceptable?

Mr. Wall stated his approval ensured the characteristics of the development warranted the need for a 20-year agreement and that the agreement, including the sequencing of amenities, is based on a reasonable business case.

However, the business case is severely flawed.  Not only have the owners stated that the current PDA is not viable for them (see genstar.sept29/08), but both senior environmental ministries have stated they cannot support the current plan and DFO specifically stated “finalizing the current plan could result in future requests for unacceptable impacts to fish habitat that may not be Authorized by this Department, necessitating future changes to the Plan and/or additional financial and temporal obligations for the District or applicants” (DFO Oct. 17/08).

Citizens have raised another red flag, warning that areas designated as natural open space on the city’s Official Community Plan can be erased with the stoke of a council pen, as was done for another developer earlier this month.  A concerned citizen wrote us the following letter: