Speakers roundly slammed proposed amendments to Surrey's Streamside Protection Bylaws and Policy at a public hearing on Monday, Sept. 9 at city hall. It will be voted on at the next council meeting this coming Monday, Sept. 23.
Former Surrey Mayor Bob Bose, who did not speak at the public hearing, calls the proposal "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 said. "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."
The intent of the amendments, based on a corporate report, 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.
Bose maintains "there's not been a proper evaluation of the impact of all of this."
A vote on third-reading was deferred to Surrey's next council meeting (on Monday, Sept. 23). Staff concluded in that report the changes proposed would "streamline the processing of applications without compromising important environmental and public interest values, consistent with federal and provincial legislation and regulations."
A dozen speakers at the public hearing opposed the amendments, with 10 letters also expressing opposition and three voicing "concern."
South Surrey resident Kathy Takasaki told council that "in a time of climate crisis reducing environmental protection makes no sense. Why do we want to go backwards?"
"The more super-adjacent development, the less flow of water for salmon and all the other aquatic species," she said. "Houses are always going to be built, but we need to protect our sensitive natural areas."
Robert Winston also opposed the "loss of riparian margins" and asked council to "shoot for" a 40 percent canopy cover.
"I've lived in Surrey for over 20 years and it's been a devastation of trees and our canopy," he said. "The canopy we have is marginal, it's below what is recommended for sure...and the trees that we lose impact health, both psychological and physical health of citizens, and this is a permanent degradation of that mitigating factor, the trees."
Guildford resident Alison Ivens said the corporate report contains "only an unsupported conviction" there will be no adverse effect on the environment if the proposal is made law and noted the City of Surrey's environment and climate change committee hasn't had an opportunity to weigh in on the corporate report. Dave Hayer, representing 55 property owners in Bridgeview, said ditches are now being designated as streams and with the housing shortage, he said, it's time council and the provincial government "reclassify" his area "and let development happen, because it's been neglected for over six decades."
Bob Gardner, representing Friends of McNally Creek, argued that the proposal is a "very poor idea. It violates Surrey's commitment to fighting climate change.
"Changing setbacks to 30 metres from the top of the bank from Class A streams, which many of the local streams are, to zero or less possibly half-way down the ravine seriously threatens Surrey's canopy as under the amendment, most of the trees will be likely felled by developers and that will threaten the fish," he told council. "I cannot see where engineers who signed this proposal have brought to mayor and council's attention the environmental damage it will cause, which I understand is their legal obligation. I also see no mention of the City's potential liabilities ensuing from this potential amendment."
"What happened to our City of Parks?"
A speaker who didn't state his name said there isn't sufficient evidence in the report to support a conclusion "important environmental and public interest values" won't be compromised. "There is a critical link between setback reduction and climate change," he said.
David Riley, president of the Little Campbell Watershed Society, said adopting the recommended policy change without public consultation "would not only be disrespectful toward the thousands of volunteers who have spent a good chunk of their life energy supporting riverine health in Surrey, it would also de disrespectful toward the Surrey decision makers and staffers who have created a legacy by doing the very same for decades. And I include there the huge effort staff made to get us to the policy we're now talking about replacing."
Deb Jack, of Surrey Environmental Partners, called the corporate report "seriously flawed.
"There is no transparency," she charged. "It is for the benefit of the few to the detriment of the many. There's been no consultation beyond giving this idea to the development advisory committee, all of which are going to benefit if this happens."
"How much will be destroyed?" Jack asked. "Surrey is going from a leadership position to mediocre if indeed they accept this."
She echoed Riley's comments. "Without the buffer that exists now, fish won't thrive. It is an enormous loss projected of carbon sink. It renders years of community planning and consultation obsolete, alienating many citizen volunteers."
"It degrades, it destroys, it goes backwards."
Annie Kapps, a North Surrey resident, has lived in this area for 80 years. "I come from a time when Bear Creek used to run up 132nd Street and we children saw salmon spawning and now that creek in so many areas is underground, where all around the world we see creeks and streams being daylighted.
"I think that this should be rejected," she said of the proposed amendments.
Kevin Purton, of Surrey Environmental Partners, said the staff report supports "an alarming 40 per cent misappropriation of some of the most environmentally bio-diverse lands in Surrey."
"I'm a member of the Environment and Climate Change Committee," he added. "We haven't been presented with this report. Our terms of reference in effect state we should be used as a sounding board for council with any environmentally pertinent being referred to the committee by council for our feedback. In fact during the current two-year term, I can't recall that ever happening. We've had meetings cancelled and one recently due to no items on the agenda to discuss. There is a feeling our best efforts and intentions are being minimized."
Later in the meeting, when bylaws related to the proposed amendments came before council for a third and then final reading, Mayor Brenda Locke asked council to send it back to staff "to provide clarification regarding some of the information in this report."
Coun. Linda Annis asked that it be put before the Environmental and Climate Change Committee because "there's a lot of people on that committee that are on that committee that have some really sage advice about the environmental issue, so I'd love to hear more from them."
City manager Rob Constanzo said it could "certainly" be put before the committee "but we would require direction from council to move forward accordingly."
Locke replied her motion wasn't intended "to do something that would trigger anything what would re-ignite a public hearing."
Coun. Mike Bose asked that staff make a presentation to the committee this week. "That would be helpful as well," he said.
"I don't know if that would be doable," Locke said.
Coun. Pardeep Kooner asked if it's possible for staff to "just respond to some of the general comments that were made instead of delaying this any further? We've been discussing this for over a year now."
The matter was back up for third and final adoption, with Bose, Annis and Locke opposed. City Clerk Jennifer Ficocelli noted that the Official Community Plan bylaw requires five members to have voted in support for it to pass, and only four did. As Coun. Gordon Hepner had left earlier in the meeting to respond to a family emergency, and Coun. Harry Bains stepped out, that vote failed, resulting in the readings being deferred to council's next meeting set for Sept. 23.
Meantime, council had voted in March to require all watercourse setbacks to align with federal and provincial legislation.
A related corporate report was presented to council on March 11.
