性视界传媒 city council has sent a proposed streamside protection bylaw amendment back to the drawing board for the third time after it was once again stomped on by a lineup of speakers at a recent public hearing, with nobody speaking in favour.

Mayor Brenda Locke made the motion, which was approved, directing staff to eliminate 鈥渞ed tape鈥� in the City鈥檚 environmental review process. Councillors Pardeep Kooner and Mandeep Nagra opposed her motion, with Harry Bains recusing himself from voting.

鈥淚 think we should make a decision today, one way or the other,鈥� Nagra told his council colleagues. 鈥淲e already

But Locke asked city staff to review it again 鈥渨ith the intent of increasing the efficiency of our planning processes without compromising environmental protection. This was the entire reason why this issue was referred to the task force in the first place. The previously council under the former mayor had mired the process to the extent that the development applications were being stalled unreasonably for long periods of time without necessarily enhancing any environmental protections.鈥�

鈥淭here were a number of comments made tonight, many of them accurate some quite inaccurate,鈥� she said after the Dec. 2 public hearing. 鈥淲e heard from a lot of folks this evening that seem to not understand the intent of this proposed bylaw change. To be clear, this council is not asking to eliminate or reduce environmental protections but rather to streamline the environmental approval processes.鈥�

Coun. Gordon Hepner said he supported Locke鈥檚 motion to refer the back to staff 鈥渂ecause we heard from the Semiahmoo and I鈥檇 like to have a little more time with it.

鈥淏ut you know, the purpose for this particular amendment to the bylaw ultimately was to give it back to the environmentalists,鈥� Hepner said. 鈥淟ike, to take that parcel and to give it back to somebody who actually knew biology, knew the ecosystem, knew everything they had to know in order for us to have a reasonable distance from the actual riverbank.鈥�

鈥淲e鈥檙e not up not here to stifle environmentalism, at all,鈥� Hepner said. 鈥淲e鈥檙e trying to actually just make bureaucracy go away slightly.鈥�

Still, Coun. Doug Elford maintained, 鈥淲e gotta do a little more leg work on this, that鈥檚 for sure.鈥�

At the Dec. 2 public hearing, speaker Michael Davies called the proposed changes "alarming" while in comparison, he said, the City of 性视界传媒's current streamside bylaws in 性视界传媒 "are some of the most balanced in terms of development, in riparian protection that I'm aware of either regionally or internationally."

Residents Alison Ivens, David Riley, Terry McNeice, David Riley, Robert Cattermole, Bob Gardner, Robert Winston, Nigel Easton, Daniel Petijevich, Anna Dean, Sarah Rush, Erika Johanson, John Holland, Annie Kaps, Deb Jack, Kevin Purton, Dave Amero, Dave Rai, Julie Kelly, Brom Kliessen and a fellow named Myles spoke against the proposed amendment, as did former 性视界传媒 mayor Doug McCallum, former 性视界传媒 councillor Allison Patton and Semiahmoo First Nation Councillor Joanne Charles.

Of those who didn't speak, 116 were against, 63 were in support and five registered "concerns."

Charles scolded council. "A lot of our rights are being infringed on by your passing of this bylaw here tonight with this amendment," she said.

"I need you to really consider what you're doing and we have a right to sit at the table to help you make decisions, with you, alongside you," she said, "to work with you.

"We have the right to conservation and protecting of the environment for our resources, for our water," she said. "We really need you to work with the local First Nations and try to do something different. The federal government's trying, the provincial government's trying and I need you guys to try to do something to work with the local First Nations, in an good way."

"I implore you to reconsider what you're doing here today," Charles said. "It's going to affect future generations."

Patton said it's an "important time" for leadership and long-term vision on council. "Your decisions matter and are important in terms of balancing the needs of housing and growth with that of the unique environment," she said. The city, she noted is comprised of one-third agricultural land, one-third green space and one-third "built space."

"During my time serving I found the current protection standards for setbacks worked in balance with development projects on a case-by-case, as needed variance basis," she said. "In this case, I am not in favour of fixing something as important as this that isn't broken."

McCallum defended the current setbacks. "Good evening mayor and council, nice to be on this side, so..."

"I do not support this amendment," he said. "In the past we worked very, very hard with the development community and especially with all of our citizens to develop a balance between the environment and development, and that is what was achieved or agreed to as the current setbacks on our creeks."

"I encourage council to, if something really isn't broken, and I've heard no reason from anybody that I've asked of why we have to make this change, then don't make the change, it's not worth it for the environment and the problems you'll cause by making that change."