Please find below a letter written last week by Saanich Councilor Nathalie Chambers regarding the “Alternate Approval Process” (AAP). The use of acronyms like these is just one example of how important municipal issues can be made vague and difficult for the public to understand. How many of us truly know what an AAP is—and how it might affect us as taxpayers and voters?
Below are also some links and to recent media coverage of Nathalie’s concerns, featured in the Times Colonist. Saanich News, and CHEK TV have also covered this as well. If you have time, they are well worth a read.
The importance of these initiatives—especially something as significant as the AAP—cannot be overstated. This kind of governance, pushed through without public consultation, is exactly what could happen to the Gravel Pit if we don’t act. If we can challenge this AAP initiative and push for a real municipal vote—where everyone gets a voice—we’ll also have a better chance of opposing the Aragon development. This is a critical moment. Let’s take advantage of it.
A recent example of how quickly things can move without public awareness is the White Wolf Homes development at 5032 Wesley Road and Gardner Place in Cordova Bay. A property previously zoned for single-family, low-height use is now becoming an 8-unit development with building heights more than double what Saanich had previously allowed. On-site parking is inadequate, and the street width raises serious concerns for emergency vehicle access—yet these issues have not been addressed.
As mentioned last week, the projected sale price for each unit is around $1.7 million. “Affordable housing,” they say—but you can still buy a single-family home for less. The only thing being “afforded” here is the developer’s profit margin. And this project is already approved. Even the immediate neighbors weren’t aware. Let’s not let this happen again.
Here is Nathalie’s’ full letter -
Is the “Alternative Approval Process”, AAP: A Democratic Deficit in Saanich?
Saving Resources but at what cost?
Does silence mean consent for borrowing $150 000 000 for the Saanich Operations Centre (SOC)?
Make you your voice known before the deadline on June 25, 2025 or silence makes it for Saanich Residents by default. 10% or more of the electors are needed to oppose borrowing $150 000 000 (that is 8735 responses in opposition)
Forms are available from May 21, 2025 and on.
The Alternative Approval Process (AAP), used by the District of Saanich to seek public consent for borrowing millions or altering community assets, is being touted as a cost-effective way to engage electors.
However, this provincially legislated mechanism, recently employed for five capital program bylaws and now proposed for the Saanich Operations Centre (SOC) redevelopment, IMO is deeply flawed. It undermines democracy, prioritizes municipal agendas over public input, and demands reform to ensure Saanich residents have a genuine voice.
The AAP’s core mechanic is inherently anti-democratic. Unlike a referendum, where residents actively vote “yes” or “no,” the AAP assumes public approval unless 10% or more of eligible electors submit an Elector Response Form to oppose a proposal.
This opt-out system places an unfair burden on residents to actively dissent, often within tight timelines like the May 21 to June 25 window for the SOC borrowing.
Many citizens, busy with daily life or unaware of the process, may not even know an AAP is underway. The recent five AAPs, concluded on March 19, 2025, for sewer, storm drainage, transportation, parks, and community facilities capital programs, illustrate this issue. With minimal public opposition recorded, one might assume widespread support—but low engagement more likely reflects the AAP’s obscurity, not community consensus.
Transparency is another casualty of the AAP. Saanich claims the process saves resources, but at what cost? Information about AAPs is often buried in municipal websites or dense documents, as seen with the SOC project’s reliance on the “HelloSaanich” page and FAQs. Elector Response Forms, only available from May 21 for the upcoming AAP, require residents to navigate bureaucratic hurdles to voice dissent. This setup disadvantages less tech-savvy or time-constrained residents, skewing participation toward those already engaged or opposed.
The District’s Debt Management Strategy, allowing 14% (We are at 5.33 % now) of prior-year revenue for debt servicing, further complicates matters.. Without clear, accessible communication about how borrowing impacts taxes, residents are left in the dark about decisions affecting their financial future.
Saanich’s leadership argues that AAPs are necessary to spread borrowing costs and maintain core services. Yet, this justification glosses over the process’s exclusionary nature.
The SOC redevelopment, a significant investment, deserves robust public scrutiny, not a passive approval process that risks rubber-stamping council priorities. The recent AAPs for capital programs, bundled together despite their distinct impacts, further diluted public ability to weigh in on specific initiatives. A referendum, though costlier, would ensure active participation and clear mandates, fostering trust in governance.
The AAP’s defenders may claim it’s efficient, but efficiency should not trump democracy. Saanich must prioritize inclusive engagement over cost-cutting shortcuts. Referendums, public town halls, or hybrid models combining digital and in-person voting could replace the AAP, ensuring all residents—not just the motivated few—shape their community’s future.
The District’s financial planning principles, including its long-term debt strategy, should be subject to transparent debate, not obscured by a process that assumes silence equals consent.
As Saanich moves forward with the SOC AAP and future proposals, residents deserve better. The AAP’s passive, opaque design erodes public trust and stifles meaningful input. It’s time to rethink this flawed process and embrace democratic alternatives that truly reflect the will of Saanich’s electors.
Visit Saanich’s website (Saanich.ca) to learn more about the SOC project and make your voice heard—before the June 25 deadline silences it by default.
Residents have until 4:30 p.m. June 25 to submit a vote – it can be done in person or by mail sent to Saanich Municipal Hall, 770 Vernon Ave. Victoria V8X-2W7, or email to aap@saanich.ca
Please check out this link for more information on this Saanich Operations Centre Alternative Process Information –
There also going to be a Saanich Operations Centre Alternative Process Information Event on May 24, from 1 to 5 pm. Attendance would be a great way to show Saanich that we are watching and listening to what is going on.
Here is a link to the Times Colonist, regarding Nathalie’s letter.
Times Colonist - Saanich seeks approval to borrow- $150M
I will continue to update everyone on this.
Best Regards,
Dan Horth