More letters opposing re-zoning

1. Jock Hildebrand

Addressed to the nine EASC Directors:I have followed this closely for several years now. I am completely opposed to the rezoning application for several reasons.

1. There has been  no environmental check on what has been  going on in secrecy , by PIM , actions that are contrary to the  bylaws .
2. The mandate, as specified in the Ceemp, an environmental assessment, has been  ignored by the committee that is supposed to oversee such an assessment. That committee is the Cowichan estuary environmental management Committee.
3. According to one of the top staff people at CVRD, speaking to a group of us, the committee is totally dysfunctional.
4. Pacific Marine Industries(PIM) has consistently ignored all permitting on the area until they were caught by bylaw officers. Their credibility is in great question, at least by me.
5. If this bylaw is amended as per the application, there will be no check on industry on this highly sensitive area.
6. The rising water in the bay will submerge the area, in places it has already done this in places. What will be washed into the bay, killing the sea life there? Nobody knows as there has been no assessment of the kinds of possible toxic materials that may be present from the illegal work that has gone on there for years.

I implore the CVRD Board to reject this application by Western Stevedoring on behalf of PIM. Please do think of the incremental degradation of the Cowichan Estuary and of your grandchildren and mine who will pay for the careless use of our precious environment.Sincerely,Jock Hildebrand    2. Peter RuslandDear CVRD Chair and Board Directors:I urge the CVRD board not to approve a rezoning application by the Cowichan Bay Terminal.The CVRD now has a unique, priceless chance to help start reversing decades of environmental damage in the bay with legal zoning amendments to stop industrial activity in and around our sensitive estuary.Indeed, businesses such as Western Stevedoring, Pacific Industrial Marine and other operations — possibly including Western Forest Products’ sawmill — should never have been allowed in the estuary in the first place.Such activities — while growing jobs — spell buildings, oil-based blacktop, dirty run-off, log-bark pollution and more in the estuary that’s home to a vast ecosystem of birds, fish, eelgrass, and other wildlife.Preserving this ecology is the goal the hard-working Cowichan Estuary Restoration & Conservation Association.I find it hard to believe the Cowichan Estuary Environmental Management Committee reviewed this rezoning application and apparently found little evidence of eco-impacts in the past several decades of bay industrial activity.Even if that is true, CVRD rezoning for continuing the bay’s industrial activity could spell future environmental crises.And let’s not forget the area’s big goal of seeing shellfish harvesting returned to the bay by 2020.Indeed, it’s the job of the province, the CVRD, local voters and Cowichan Tribes to bring that goal to reality by creating a pristine environment in our bay.Say ’No’ to this rezoning application.Yours truly,Peter W. Rusland   3. Dr. Goetz SchuerholzDear EASC Directors,I am writing this letter on behalf of CERCA.It has been brought to our attention that each of you has been advised by the CVRD that you are not permitted to accept any information from the public regarding Tidal Harmony's re-zoning application, subject to a public hearing as decided by the EASC Board at the first reading. However we can't find anything in the corresponding CVRD Bylaws on Public Input that would justify such interpretation of the bylaw.Within this context I refer to Chapter 3. PUBLIC INPUT PERIOD of the COWICHAN VALLEY REGIONAL DISTRICT Bylaw No. 2922 - Consolidated for Convenience with Amending Bylaw No. 3459, 3677, 3699 and 4149 A Bylaw to Regulate the Proceedings of Committees and Commissions. CONSOLIDATED OCTOBER 12, 2017 - CVRD Bylaw No. 2922 which reads as follows:"The purpose of the Public Input Period is to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on an agenda item before the Board / Committee / Commission considers the item. The Public Input Period Procedure Policy provides for the public input period to proceed in a timely fashion. Public Input Period items cannot include matters which are, or have been, the subject of a Public Hearing".It would be highly unjustified if the newly elected EASC directors would not have the opportunity to get properly informed about the issue at stake by all means possible considering the current time constraints. Their valued colleagues who have been on the EASC Board since the application for re-zoning was first submitted more than two years ago had the advantage of listening to and studying all the arguments brought forward. In comparison, the newly elected directors on the EASC Board did not have this opportunity. Over the past years the EASC Board members were well briefed on all facets and angles associated with the re-zoning issue, and are very familiar with all arguments in favour and against the re-zoning. They had the opportunity to get informed through interactions with their constituents, NGOs, Industry, comprehensive correspondence from CERCA and their lawyers, power point presentations given by CERCA at past EASC meetings and much more which the new directors did not have. It is self-evident that therefore they are highly disadvantaged. Therefore they should be given the opportunity to receive the same information other directors have had the opportunity to obtain in the past.Interaction with their constituents should be encouraged instead of squashed by policies which contradict democratic principles. It is their right and obligation as elected representatives to communicate with their constituents in order to get properly prepared for making informed decisions that are based on sound and comprehensive background information beyond the summary report and recommendation provided to them by the CVRD Planning Department.Against this background we request the CVRD and the Chair of the EASC Board to retract their advise given to the EASC directors not to communicate with their constituents until the public hearing.  It is their right to be well informed and in the best interest of their constituents.It is self-evident that due to time and space constraints the proposed public hearing will not be able to provide all the information to the new directors accessible to their colleagues who have been on the Board for the past two years, a significant disadvantage that may lead to a biased and lop-sided outcome.CERCA is currently pursuing a legal opinion on this issue to assure that the newly elected directors have free access to all and any possible information until the decision on this issue has been made.Respectfully,Goetz Schuerholz 4. Dr. Goetz SchuerholzDear EASC Board Directors,

1. PIM Operations on Westcan Terminal:

The statement repeatedly published in recent  newspaper articles that PIM moved its operations onto the Terminal decades ago is false. Referring to the attached power point slides: the slides document PIM's first appearance on the terminal and gradual expansion until    today, all without required CVRD development and building permits. PIM also operated under an un un-registered sub-lease from Western Stevedoring which in 2004 (until 20019) held a registered sub lease from Tidal Harmony Holdings  for the dock facilities only.         PIM established its business on the Terminal soon after lumber shipment from the terminal stopped in 2005. Crown Lease Agreement for Terminal Area Article V:“The Lessee (Tidal Harmony Holdings) shall not assign, mortgage, sublet, or transfer this lease without the prior written consent of the Lessor” : PIM’s Sub-lease was never approved/registered.

2. Elimination of Bulk Petroleum Shipment & Storage as currently permitted under CVRD zoning:

This seemingly generous offer by Western Stevedoring to give up rights to bulk petroleum storage and shipment is ludicrous since the Crown Leases specifically prohibit Bulk storage and shipment of petroleum products and other toxic materials being well aware that this   is not compatible with the ecology of the estuary:       Crown Lease Agreement for Terminal Area Special Proviso 1.2 (e): “The Lessee shall not store bulk hazardous petroleum Products and other toxic substances…” The list of wrong information spread on behalf of Western Stevedoring and PIM is long.The vast majority of people living in Cowichan Bay do not want industry in the estuary and strongly object to the re-zoning application. Why do decision makers not listen to their constituents?Respectfully,Goetz Schuerholz 5. Jerome and Pam WebsterTo CVRD Board of DirectorsDear sir/madam,We find it incomprehensible that in the light of our global environmental situation (all scientifically revealed) that we in Cowichan Valley are actually contemplating zoning the very heart of our Estuary “Heavy Industrial “! Please do not pursue this course of action until such time as an independent E.I.A. study has been completed, and in the meantime suspend all (illegal) manufacturing activities at the West-can terminal.This should incur minimal job losses as PIM already is operating in a correctly zoned area in Chemainus.By re zoning  “heavy industrial” it could potentially open the flood gates for many different companies to further pollute and harm the estuary.We would thank you for voting on the re-zoning issue with the precautionary -principle in mind.Kind regards,Jerome and Pam Webster 6. Letter by Dr. Connie Harris, Cowichan Bay ResidentRe: proposed rezoning in Cowichan Bay,I admire the work of both of you, Lori, our Area D director, and Jack Knox, whose column we enjoy daily, but on this issue, there is another very valid point of view.My husband and I live directly over the bay and have witnessed the industry on the man-made spit going into the bay.I find it really upsetting that the company involved has blatantly ignored the contract that they signed with the government (representatives of us!) and gone ahead with illegal development and sub-leasing.We can also clearly observe that the number of people employed at the facility below us is truly more like 15 and not 50 to 80 as the company says.Keeping people employed is really important, but that could still be accomplished by relocating the manufacturing business to a location better suited to that use, and one which already has the zoning appropriate to the use and already has marine industrial uses such as Chemainus.There is no good reason that the estuary needs to be subjected to industrial pressure like this.  The actual owners higher up on the food chain are not residents of Cowichan Bay or even of Canada, so they have no personal stake in keeping our natural habitat breathing and alive. For us, it is our front yard.Below is Dr. Schuerholz's summary of events and facts related to the case. He is a world-wide authority in natural environments and knows the complicated environmental issues inside out. He knows the harms possible from this type of development and also has researched the crazy history of this piece of land and estuary with regard to the patchwork of leases, sub-leases, what permission was given when and for what, and how the current occupants are totally disregarding the limits of their agreement. So please read the notes below, and if you need further input he would very likely be happy to show you with slides and photos the complete and complicated story.Below  is the website for CERCA. If you check out the resources section here, you will find the agreements and studies up to 2005. For the past 14 years now there has been a seemingly unmonitored deviation from the plans that were in place.Protecting the estuary and restoring it to a place where shellfish are safe to eat, where it's safe to swim without sewage in the rivers coming into the bay and sea water (thanks to Lori for her work on this), where eelgrass can grow and thrive, where heavy metals don't contaminate the water, where it's beautiful and clean - that's what we want.https://www.cowichanestuary.com/resources-2/Thanks in advance for reading the attached information,Sincerely,Connie Harris, Cowichan Bay, Area D Robin Lawson Meeting Ron DiederichsRobin Lawson met with Ron Diederichs in his office in Nanaimo on March 18, 2019. His notes add more proof to what is essentially an abrogation of responsibilities under the auspices of Order-in-Council 1652 and the CEEMP by the downloading to CVRD. Further, Mr. Diederichs is assigning pollution control duties to the CVRD which properly belong with the Provincial Government. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Re: 20 minute chat with Ron Diederichs today (March18, 2019).I found Mr. Diederichs in his office at noon today. He was seemingly open when I asked about the committee's procedures and decision making. CERCA folks and many other parties attended the public information session, April 15, 2018.  They then reconvened to discuss all that information and draw up a “consensus" report they all agreed on.  DFO has been notably absent of late he said but they are updated re proceedings. The two CVRD representatives recused themselves from the process due to the potential perspective of conflict of interest.Ron D cited that no real alarm bells were sounded in their examination of the matter.   1990 studies indicate continued improvement [in the estuary] since then. With logging [log and lumber storage and shipping] winding down  their activities, the indicators of returning eelgrass, increased chinook numbers and increased shellfish all point to improved health [of the Estuary] Without findings of harm, he felt no reason to delay their [the provincial government’s] end of the process.I stepped through the Site Plan process and he repeated that this is CVRD's process and it is their responsibility to ensure due diligence. He did not disagree that Schedule 2 boxes should be ticked off with the welding/sandblasting, sap-stain preventing chemicals etc.  (I assume testing of soil and water will be mandatory on those Schedule 2 infractions?).He was not overly concerned by flooding and future king tides and sea rise. Again he claims it is in CVRD's compass to ensure their wastewater management plan is adequate and thorough and that they can adapt to global warming alterations with reasonable actions.  He feels such metals and so on should be in CVRD's process to deal with effectively and properly.Robin