S URREY EY ’ S S ENS IVE E COSYST SYSTEM P ROTECTION TECTION M EASUR NSIT ITIVE URES ES F ORUM ON E NVIR AL A SSE FOR U RBAN D EVEL UM ON IRONMENT ONMENTAL SESS SSMEN MENT FOR VELOPMEN OPMENT O CTOBE OBER 19, 9, 20 2016
A GENDA Why ? • Riparian and Environmental Considerations • Council Direction What ? • Sensitive Ecosystem Development Permit Areas Where and How ? • Protection Areas (BCS GIN and Streamside Zoning Bylaw) How ? • Amendment of OCP • Amendment of Zoning Bylaw When? • Next Steps 2
W HY ? R IPARIAN AND E NVIRONMENTAL C ONSIDERATIONS • Erosion • Slope Stability • Trees • Drainage Maintenance Access • Encroachments • Invasive Species • Beaver Management • Public Access • Species at Risk • Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (BCS) • Riparian Areas Regulations (RAR) • Streamlined Process 3
E ROSION Narrow riparian areas; • do not allow for natural creek movement – require armouring / fortifying or purchasing at great expense. • Presents a major liability for homeowners as well as the City Wider riparian areas increase resilience to erosion
S LOPE S TABILITY / T REE F AILURES • Erodes natural angle of repose • Erosion often causes slope instability to structures and trees (causes tree failures).
E ROSION / T REE F AILURES Narrow riparian areas: • exacerbate erosion resulting in the undermining of trees • do not allow tree failure without liability
D RAINAGE M AINTENANCE A CCESS Require drainage access for: • streamflow conveyance maintenance and • major and minor capital works
H AZARD T REE M ANAGEMENT Native trees >30m tall – taller than the width of many riparian areas – trees may fall across entire riparian area targeting both sides of the greenspace. Narrow riparian areas are less resilient to wind-throw.
E NCROACHMENTS Small lots often encroach on adjacent riparian areas to obtain more usable yard space Narrow riparian areas are often enveloped within the adjacent private property due to their apparent ‘insignificance.’
I NVASIVE P LANTS Narrow riparian areas: • do not allow for interior forest habitat • Are more susceptible to invasive species invasion and are quickly degraded • Are more expensive as a unit cost to maintain
B EAVERS : F LOODING • Beaver dams may raise water >1m in 24 hours above HWM • May cause flooding to adjacent homes and infrastructure • Often not enough time for the City to respond to flooding
B EAVERS : H IGH W ATER & H AZARD T REES • Beavers fell trees • Beaver dams raise water table increasing tree root-plate failures
T RAILS /P UBLIC A CCESS • Trails are not permitted within RAR SPEA area, • RAR setbacks do not allow for public access and use of riparian areas
BCS - W ILDLIFE M OVEMENT • Riparian areas are natural dispersal corridors for wildlife • Meet Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (BCS) Green Infrastructure Network (GIN) objectives • The wider the wildlife corridor is, the more functional and resilient it is • Narrow riparian areas reduce gravel recruitment necessary for salmon spawning and stormwater conveyance measures
S PECIES AT R ISK Federal and Provincial Species at Risk Pacific Water Shrew • Salish Sucker • Oregon Forest Snail • Red-legged frog • More to come… • Many species are dependant on riparian areas Under SARA - Landowners must demonstrate ‘Effective Protection’
Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (BCS) ~405+ acres (of remaining ~3100 acres) of unsecured BCS GIN could be conveyed with the proposed Streamside Protection Zoning Setbacks 4
S TREAMSIDE R EGULATIONS B ACKGROUNDER 1992: Surrey used DFO/MOE “Land Development Guidelines” 2006: Local governments required to adopt RAR procedures (‘meet or beat’) in land-use decisions by March 31, 2006. 2013: Changes to Fisheries Act (Fed) uncouple it from Variance Process under RAR - No more Surrey Environmental Review Committee (ERC) - Surrey follows interim procedure of Detailed RAR reports with peer review 2015: Ombudsperson report identifies deficiencies in Provincial RAR Oversight -Provincial audit of Local Government compliance with RAR 5
R IPARIAN A REAS R EGULATION • March 31, 2006 - Local Government must ‘meet or beat RAR’ Interim Process • Detailed Riparian Area Regulations (RAR) Assessment with Peer Review • Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) (Must be regulated by an Act e.g: R.P.Bio, P.Eng, R.P.F., P.Ag, P.Geo, ASTTBC) • Focus on not causing Harmful Alteration Damage Destruction (HADD) to Fish Habitat • Disconnect of Federal Fisheries Act ‘No Serious Harm’ not equivalent to ‘No HADD” results in no Variances to RAR
C OUNCIL D IRECTION Goal – to develop a streamlined, transparent approval process whil managing for the City of Surrey’s Values and Liabilities Develop Streamside/Riparian • Establish a clear Regulations – understanding of the Streamside Zoning required setbacks and a site’s Bylaw development potential Add Sensitive Ecosystem • Protect streams, BCS GIN Development Permit Habitat and Federal Species At Areas to fill OCP Risk Placeholder 6
W HAT ? S ENSITIVE E COSYSTEM D EVELOPMENT P ERMIT A REAS (DPA’ S ) DPA and Guidelines: - OCP (Local Government Act) - Identifies overall area requiring protection - Identifies how development should be managed and adjusted - Two types 1. Green Infrastructure 2. Streamside 7
W HERE ? D EVELOPMENT P ERMIT A REAS Green Infrastructure : Trigger for a DP? - Green Infrastructure Network (GIN) - Hubs - Sites - Corridors - Defined by Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 8
W HERE AND H OW ? P ROTECTION A REAS Green Infrastructure: • Defined by using information in the BCS • Management Objectives in Biodiversity Management Areas and Appendix J Recommendations • Ecosystem Development Plan (EDP) – specific to Green Infrastructure • Submitted and Illustrated in a DP Application as the “ Green Infrastructure Protection Area ” 9
W HERE ? D EVELOPMENT P ERMIT A REAS Streamside: Trigger for a DP? - Defined by Stream Types and Classifications • Class A ( Red ) Classifications – Fish bearing • Class A/O ( Red dashed ) – Fish over-wintering • Class B ( Yellow ) – Food / Nutrient 10
W HERE AND H OW ? P ROTECTION A REAS Streamside : - Determined by using Zoning Bylaw - Ecosystem Development Plan (EDP) – specific to Streamside Area - Submitted and Illustrated in a DP Application as the: “ Streamside Protection Area ” 11
S TREAMSIDE P ROTECTION Z ONING B YLAW Development Application with FLEX option A streamside setback area is calculated by a QEP using the minimum distance from the top of bank Stream Types Class A or A/O Class B All streams except… 30m 20m Channelized 25m 15m Ditches 10m 7m Natural 30m 15m Large Ravines >60m 15m 15m Single family dwelling on existing lots – No FLEX For lots that existed prior to [insert date], where zoning allows for single family dwelling and duplex uses, the streamside setback area is calculated by using the minimum distance from top of bank Stream Types Class A or A/O Class B All streams except… 15m 15m Ditches 10m 7m 12
S TREAMSIDE Z ONING B YLAW – F LEX O PTION Provided there is no loss in the total area of the streamside setback area , the minimum distance from the top of bank may be reduced by no more than *5 metres or **3 metres and increased by no more than 10 metres. 13
S TREAMSIDE I MPACT M ITIGATION P LAN DVP Requests: - For proposed reductions to the Streamside Protection Area beyond the Zoning Bylaw setbacks and Flex Allowance - Streamside Impact Mitigation Plan (IMP) REQUIRED with DVP application - Illustrate and prove with QEP reports that the proposed setback reduction will not have negative impacts: - RAR compliant - Increased flooding (beavers) - Unstable soil conditions - Inability to access for maintenance - Riparian habitat destruction etc - Administered by Council 14
D EVELOPMENT S CENARIOS … SFD ON E XISTING L OT (T ABLE B.2 OF Z ONING B YLAW ) C ONSISTENT WITH FORMER L AND D EVELOPMENT G UIDELINES 15
D EVELOPMENT S CENARIOS … BP P RE -E XISTING N ON -C ONFORMING R ENOVATION OR A DDITION 16
D EVELOPMENT S CENARIOS … S UBDIVISION WITH G REEN I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROTECTION A REAS 17
D EVELOPMENT S CENARIOS … S UBDIVISION WITH S TREAMSIDE P ROTECTION A REAS 18
D EVELOPMENT S CENARIOS … G REEN I NFRASTRUCTURE AND S TREAMSIDE P ROTECTION A REAS 19
C ONSULTATION • Corporate Reports • Memo to Council (update) – Sept 2015 • Local Governments Workshop • Stakeholder Workshop • City Committees • Stakeholder Information Session 20
W HEN ? N EXT S TEPS Corporate Report to Council July 25, 2016 – received 1 st , 2 nd reading • – Recommendations: 1) Amend OCP 2) Amend Zoning Bylaw 3) Identify upcoming Amendments to Tree Protection Bylaw 4) Identify upcoming Amendments to Soil Removal and Deposition Bylaw • Final Adoption of Bylaw Amendments - Sept 12, 2016 • Updating other Bylaws (Tree Preservation Bylaw , Soil Bylaw etc …) • Implementation - Planning and Development Department 21
Q UESTIONS ? 22
Recommend
More recommend
