POLICY REPORT
Development and Building
Date: July 30, 1996
Dept. File No. MvH
TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: Director of Land Use and Development
SUBJECT: Report Back on the Scientific Telephone Survey Concerning the
Proposed Option 3 Amendments to the Private Property Tree
By-law
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. THAT the results of the telephone survey be received for
information;
B. THAT the recommendations in the two Policy Reports dated June
13, 1996 be approved; and
C. THAT the interim Tree By-law No. 7594, enacted on July 11, be
repealed at the time of enactment of the recommended
amendments to the Private Property Tree By-law No. 7347.
As an alternative to B, the following is presented for Council s
CONSIDERATION;
D. THAT the recommendations in the two Policy Reports dated June
13, 1996 be approved with inclusion of a clause (e) under the
proposed new section PERMITS , whereby any property owner may
remove one tree during a twelve month period, with a permit,
subject to the requirement for a replacement tree.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of A,
B and C. However, noting that there is a small, but vocal,
minority which opposes the by-law as proposed, and noting that many
people may wish to replace trees for reasons not accommodated in
the proposed by-law, he submits D for CONSIDERATION, in lieu of B.
COUNCIL POLICY
There is no relevant Council policy regarding evaluation of the results
from a scientific survey soliciting public response to a policy matter
before Council.
PURPOSE
This report responds to a request from Council on July 11, 1996 to
undertake a scientific telephone survey of Vancouver residents to
determine the level of support or opposition for amendments to the
Private Property Tree By-law, presented as Option 3 in the Policy Report
dated June 13, 1996.
BACKGROUND
On July 11, 1996, Council discussed two reports concerning options to an
expanded Private Property Tree By-law, and the accompanying recommended
Option 3 amendments to the By-law. Council recommended that a city-wide
scientific survey be undertaken by a professional, independent polling
company to determine the support for Option 3, and that the results be
reported back to Council on or before August 1, 1996. At the time,
Council also requested that the Director of Legal Services bring forward
the necessary by-law amendments on or before August 1, 1996.
DISCUSSION
Survey Results
The professional polling firm of McIntyre and Mustel Research Associates
Ltd. was contracted by the City to undertake the telephone survey
requested by Council. The scientific survey included telephone
interviews with 1,085 Vancouver residents over 18 years of age. Over
200 interviews were conducted in each of five sectors of the city --
northeast, northwest, southeast, southwest and downtown.
The detailed results of the questionnaire are attached as Appendix A and
can be summarized as follows:
1. Overall, there is widespread majority support for the proposed
Option 3 amendments to the Private Property Tree By-law. A total
of 73% of the respondents supported the amendments without changes.
Support varied from a low of 68% in the Northeast sector to a high
of 82% in the Downtown sector.
2. There was widespread but lower support for the alternatives that
would provide some exemption from the proposed regulations.
Providing flexibility to remove one tree per year received 58%
overall support; allowing the removal of one tree every two years
received 52% overall support.
3. Finally, even less support was given to the alternative of
increasing the diameter of trees to 12" from the currently stated
8" diameter, as a minimum size for retention. The support for this
alternative declined to 29% overall.
The results from the telephone survey clearly point to the strong
overall public support for the proposed by-law amendments. All
alternatives to the original proposal received lesser support. It is
somewhat surprising to see that the alternatives that would provide more
flexibility to the property owner, such as the ability to remove one
tree a year, received less support than the proposed amendments. On the
other hand, this alternative would create an opportunity for property
owners to still remove significant trees that do not need to be removed
and are highly valued by the community and significantly contribute to
neighbourhood character. Even within the proposed by-law amendments,
there still is the opportunity to seek relief in special situations
through the Board of Variance.
Staffing Implications
With or without the alternatives, there will be demands on staff to
either manage an application/permit process to remove one tree a year or
support the Board of Variance in processing appeals seeking relief from
the by-law regulations. To date, there have been no appeals heard by
the Board of Variance dealing with tree issues. This is expected to
change with the recommended amendments to the by-law and this load will
directly impact staffing and the Board. Whether with more onerous
regulations and consequent appeals, or less restrictive regulations and
more on-going application/ administrative requirements for annual tree
removal, the staffing requirements are expected to be roughly the same.
As stated in the two policy reports of June 13, 1996 it is very hard to
estimate the exact staffing requirements, but the proposed increase in
staffing levels indicated in these reports are estimated to be adequate
to deal with at least the immediate demands. Any changes in staffing
demands will have to be reported back, based on experience rather than
projections.
CONCLUSION
Approval of the earlier recommendations of the Policy Reports of June
13, 1996 is supported by the results of the telephone survey.
Consideration could be given to a by-law exemption allowing one tree
removal per year, with permit, subject to the requirement for a
replacement tree. This showed less support than for the proposed
amendments, but would provide some flexibility to property owners with
access or maintenance problems on their property. However, there is a
distinct drawback with this or a similar exemption in that it allows no
protection for significant trees and, on properties with only one or two
significant trees, the accumulated effect could be similar to our
existing situation.
Consequently, staff recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the
Private Property Tree By-law presented as Option 3 in the June 13, 1996
Policy Report, if it is Council s intent to introduce additional
regulations to address the tree removal continuing under the by-law.
Regardless of Council s decision, the interim Tree By-law, No. 7594
should be repealed with the enactment of the recommended amendments to
the by-law.