It's been an upstream battle for the City of Surrey, but on Monday council gave final approval to a controversial staff proposal to amend bylaws related to streamside protection and sensitive ecosystems development permits.
The vote came after a public hearing.
City hall received two pieces of correspondence expressing support, 21 opposed and one expressing concerns.
Council's May 12 agenda stated the new amendments "support streamlining the City's development and permitting processes."
"I don't think it is about streamside protection," resident Annie Kaps told council. "I think it's all about development.
"I just wonder what the real thing behind this is and it seems to me it has nothing to do with the protection of our streamside, it's to appease developers. I'm sorry, but that's my take on it," she said.
Another speaker called it a "step backwards in environmental protection" and David Riley, a long-time volunteer with the Little Campbell Watershed Society, said the latest changes proposed "are still far too draconian and not brought about in consultation with the city's own frontline staff but rather driven by the false ideological idea being advanced that a functional environment and putting roofs over heads are somehow in competition."
Prior to the vote Ron Gill, Surrey's general manager of planning and development, told council what's changed is some permissions for works and services being constructed by a developer on behalf of the City. "The remaining changes are procedural."
Surrey's planning and development department put before council a corporate report containing new proposed bylaw amendments after council sent the matter back to the drawing board for a third time, on Dec. 2, 2024, after it was once again stomped on by a lineup of speakers at a public hearing with nobody speaking in favour.
Mayor Brenda Locke made the motion, which was approved, directing staff to eliminate “red tape” in the City’s environmental review process. Locke asked city staff to review it again “with the intent of increasing the efficiency of our planning processes without compromising environmental protection."
Council supported an addendum request at its April 28 meeting to pass first and second readings and set a public hearing for May 12 on a staff recommendation to amend the Sensitive Ecosystems Development Permit "trigger area" to now embrace property within 30 metres instead of 50 metres of the top bank of fish-bearing streams.
A related corporate report that also came before council Monday noted that currently "any site with land within 50 metres of the top of bank of a Class A, A/O or B watercourse must obtain a development permit" and "reducing that distance to 30 metres will immediately exempt about one-quarter of affected properties, cutting unnecessary applications."
Council voted on March 20, 2024 to amend the city’s policy to require all watercourse setbacks to align with provincial and federal requirements. The intent was to require all of Surrey's watercourse setbacks to conform to provincial and federal legislation and changes to Sensitive Ecosystems Development Permit requirements aimed at streamlining development application review timelines.
But speakers roundly slammed the proposed amendments at a public hearing on Sept. 9, 2024, Former Surrey Mayor Bob Bose, who did not speak at the public hearing, called them "devastating" in that all told "there's maybe a 1,000 acres of land that's involved here by reducing the setbacks.
"The setbacks represent an amenity contribution to the City. What they're doing is transferring a public asset – because those setbacks are a public asset – they're transferring it, without compensation, to the private sector to say nothing about the fact those watercourses and those setbacks may be absolutely necessary to deal with the effect of climate change, storm surges and all the rest of it," Bose reasoned at the time. "If it's 1,000 acres, it has a market value of maybe $6 billion. Well, it's at least $6 million an acre if you were to try to but those lands. It's somewhere between $2 billion and $6 billion probably, so that's a huge loss to the City in value."
Council was expected to vote on it on Sept. 23, 2024 but it was pulled from the agenda.
The latest iteration of policy council supported on Monday states that measures put on the table don't alter Surrey mandatory streamside setbacks but "are expected to halve the number of full SEDP (sensitive ecosystems development permit) applications and trim several weeks from the review time of those that remain.
"In addition to streamlining the SEDP process, staff is proposing to proactively map and assess watercourse classifications and setbacks in areas of the City where there is a lot of development activity (for example, in Neighbourhood Concept Plan (“NCP”) areas)," Surrey's general manager of planning and development Ron Gill, and Scott Neuman, Surrey's general manager of engineering, state in their corporate report. "Staff therefore recommend Council adopt the changes exactly as previously outlined."
They add that in keeping with council's Dec. 2 direction, staff are proposing "minimal changes" to streamside setback requirements.
"An amendment is recommended to permit works within road allowance and infrastructure frontage works (road, utilities, sidewalks, street trees, etc.) being completed by a developer, in accordance with City requirements, to be undertaken within the streamside protection area," Gill and Neuman informed council.
"Currently, the construction, maintenance or operation of municipal works and services is already permitted within the streamside protection area. The proposed amendment would extend these permissions to include works and services being completed by a developer as a condition of a development proposal (and essentially on behalf of the City), avoiding the need for variances to accommodate these necessary infrastructure improvements."
The report states that city staff proposed refinements to the Sensitive Ecosystem Development Permit (SEDP) system "to speed up environmental reviews without weakening protection."
