SUPPORTS ITEM NO. 2
CS&B COMMITTEE AGENDA
JULY 10, 1997
POLICY REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING
Date: May 23, 1997
Dept. File No. MvH
CC File: 113/5301
TO: Standing Committee on City Services and Budgets
FROM: Director of Land Use and Development in consultation with the
Directors of Permits and Licenses and Legal Services, General
Managers of the Board of Parks and Recreation and Engineering
Services
SUBJECT: Report Back on Amendments to the Private Property Tree By-law
and Associated Programs
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. THAT the Private Property Tree By-law be amended so that
property owners are required to locate a proposed garage or
other accessory building to retain a tree where it is
appropriate to do so;
B. THAT Engineering Services, the Board of Parks and Recreation,
and public utilities be exempted from the requirements of the
Private Property Tree By-law;
C. THAT the minimum fine be reduced from $5,000 to $500, while
retaining the maximum fine of $20,000, for an offense against
the Private Property Tree By-law;
D. THAT the other amendments to the existing Private Property
Tree By-law that clarify enforcement provisions be approved,
as summarized in Appendix A, and the housekeeping amendments
in Appendix B also be approved;
E. THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to bring
forward the necessary By-law amendments; and
F. THAT staff proceed with the investigation of developing a Tree
Trust and actively support a Tree Preservation Awards Program,
in consultation with the City's existing Heritage Foundation
and the City's Heritage staff, to further encourage the
retention of significant trees.
The following are presented for CONSIDERATION:
G. THAT the permit fees be increased for:
1.Single tree removal from $10 to $40;
2.For multiple tree removals, from $50 for the first tree and
$20 for every tree removed thereafter, to $90 for each tree;
and
H. THAT Option 3 be approved as described herein, which permits
property owners within the Private Property Tree By-law to
remove one tree per twelve month period, except in the
prescribed front and rear yard areas close to the property
line.
These CONSIDERATIONS are subject to the appropriate amendments
to the Private Property Tree By-law and subsequent enactment
by Council.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS A-F. As
it is consistent with Council s policy of full-cost recovery,
the General Manager also RECOMMENDS G, recognizing that there
is some risk that higher fees may increase non-compliance.
CONSIDERATION item H is principally aimed at limiting the
number of trees in community-sensitive locations which are
removed by inappropriately applying the one-tree-a-year
exemption to redevelopment situations. Using current numbers,
this would likely save up to an additional 100 to 150 trees
per year. However, this would be achieved at the cost of
considerable additional regulatory complexity and at the cost
of severely limiting the ability of homeowners to apply the
one-tree-a-year provision to legitimate non-development
situations. Many would find this limitation counter to the
objective of reasonable landscape maintenance which the
one-tree-a-year provision was intended to facilitate. Placing
a maximum 150 tree per year in the context of an estimated
stock of 200,000 trees on private property and a further
100,000 street trees, noting that the total stock of trees in
the City continues to increase, and observing that all private
property tree removal outside the building envelope requires
one-for-one replacement, the General Manager of Community
Services does not believe the public benefits of H justify its
public and private costs. Further, he is concerned that any
serious consideration of additional limitations will trigger a
rash of tree removals prior to the imposition of the new
By-law, thus potentially endangering as many trees as it
saves. The General Manager of Community Services, therefore,
DOES NOT RECOMMEND H.
COUNCIL POLICY
Council originally approved tree replacement provisions in the Zoning
and Development By-law in 1990. On February 15, 1994 Council directed
the current level of regulation not be expanded and subsequently, on
November 1, 1994, enacted a new Private Property Tree By-law that
maintained the same level of regulation but within the legislative
context of Bill 77, the new Provincial Tree Legislation.
Council then approved further amendments to the Private Property Tree
By-law on July 30, 1996 that included the requirement for a tree permit
to remove any tree on private property that exceeds 20cm in diameter,
measured 1.4 m above the ground, subject to fulfilling specific criteria
to allow removal. An exception was made whereby any property owner may
remove one tree during any twelve month period, with a permit, subject
to the requirement for a replacement tree. A $10 single tree-permit fee
was also established, while multiple tree removals would be $50 for the
first tree and $20 thereafter. At that time, Council also approved an
increase in the fine of not less than $5,000 and not more than $20,000,
for any person who commits an offense against the Private Property Tree
By-law.
On January 17, 1991, Council resolved that every Department and Board
review services for which fees are now charged to ensure that fees are
recovering the full costs of the services to the City or are equivalent
to competitive charges where the fee is of a market nature.
Council also approved a Tree Voucher Program in September 1995, to
promote the planting of 3,000 trees on private property. In April 1996,
Council subsequently approved additional funding to maintain the
original program.
SUMMARY
This report discusses the City's experience with the Private Property
Tree By-law following amendments in August 1996, and recommends that
further amendments be made to protect more trees that do not need to be
removed during redevelopment. It also puts forward for consideration an
option that would be even more restrictive of tree removal on private
property. Also discussed, and closely related to this, are other
recommended By-law amendments required to clarify enforcement provisions
and exemptions from permit requirements. Fee increases are also
suggested for consideration to cover the shortfall in permit revenues.
Further programs that recognize and encourage tree retention where
possible are also discussed, including the Tree Voucher Program,
Landscape Preservation Awards and the Tree Trust.
Other tree and landscape related issues complete the report with the
view to continue to monitor these with the experience gained from the
amendments to the Private Property Tree By-law.
PURPOSE
This report responds to three requests from Council:
On July 30, 1996, Council resolved: "THAT staff be requested
to report back in six months on the progress and any abuses
with respect to the changes to the Private Property Tree
By-law."
On August 1, 1996, under Enquiries and Other Matters:
"Councillor Clarke requested staff to report back on the
implications on tree preservation under the RS-1, RS-5, and
RS-6 zoning."
On October 22, 1996, under Enquiries and Other Matters:
"Councillor Chiavario also requested staff to include in the
report back strategies to prevent some developers from taking
advantage of the one-tree-a-year clause in the By-law."
BACKGROUND
On July 30, 1996 Council discussed and approved amendments to the
Private Property Tree By-law following a city-wide scientific survey
soliciting public response to the proposed amendments and alternatives
to those amendments. The amendments which Council enacted were revised
to include a provision that allows property owners the right to remove
one tree in any twelve-month period, subject to the requirement for a
permit and a replacement tree.
Council felt that this one tree exemption would provide the necessary
flexibility for homeowners to be able to remove trees as a normal course
of property maintenance. At the same time, Council felt that the added
requirement for a replacement tree, in a similar or more appropriate
location on the same property, would essentially, over time, replace the
removed tree.
To properly monitor the changes to the Private Property Tree By-law,
Council requested that staff report back in six months on any negative
effects. Further requests from Council on August 1, 1996 and October
22, 1996 required staff to examine the impact of tree preservation in
the RS-1, RS-5, and RS-6 zones, as well as examine strategies to prevent
developers from taking advantage of the one-tree-a-year clause in the
By-law.
DISCUSSION
Progress Report on the Private Property Tree By-law
Since August 1, 1996, when the amendments to the Private Property Tree
By-law were enacted by Council, staff have monitored the changes through
the new permitting process.
As exhibited in Appendix C, the following trends associated with the
By-law changes and other continuing issues became evident over the eight
month period from August 1, 1996 to March 31, 1997:
619 trees were removed from development sites during the 8-
month period, while a similar total of 628 trees were removed
from non-development properties over the same period. In
total, 1,247 trees were removed. This represents almost 1,870
trees if projected over a year s time frame of the estimated
300,000 private and street trees in the city. However, this
yearly projection might not be accurate since there are
seasonal variations that affect tree permit volumes.
49% or 619 trees removed from private property took place on
development properties. This is not necessarily surprising
overall, as development sites only represent a relatively
small portion of the total lots in the city. However,
development sites still generally make the greatest overall
impact, since they normally involve multiple tree removal
(average 2.5 trees per permit); on non-development sites, only
single trees are normally removed (average 1.2 trees per
permit).
In the majority of cases, development applicants took
advantage of the 1 tree a year exemption in addition to the
tree removal allowance within the building envelope. This use
of the 1 tree a year exemption has amounted to 18% or 110
trees removed on development sites.
Of the trees removed on development properties, 29% or 180
trees were removed because they were in the accessory building
(garage) building envelope. Some of these tree removals
disregarded the option to shift the garage to save a tree.
Trees continue to be removed near the front yard and back yard
property lines. These trees are important contributors to
neighbourhood character as they are closest to the street and
lanes.
Development applicants are taking advantage of the one tree removal
provision that was not intended for them. Even in the RS single-family
zones, such as the recently approved RS-5 zone, where landscape
features are to be retained as a condition of approval, Legal Services
have confirmed that the Private Property Tree By-law still permits the
removal of 1 tree a year, regardless of any zoning guidelines for tree
retention. Generally, many of the development properties, especially in
single-family RS-1 zones, have only 1 or 2 significant trees outside the
principal and secondary building envelopes, normally near the front yard
or rear yard property lines. This number is even lower, on average, on
the East side. Without the one-tree-a-year provision, these trees would
normally not fulfill any of the criteria for removal in the By-law and,
therefore, be retained. This means that, with the one tree a year
provision, at least 50%, if not 100%, of the trees on these development
properties can be removed, requiring only smaller replacement trees.
On non-development properties, trees are also being removed under the
one-tree-a-year provision near the front and rear yard property lines.
At the same time, the one-tree provision appears to provide the needed
flexibility for homeowners to maintain and develop their yard.
There is an existing Vancouver Heritage Register that does include a
listing of 41 trees, but this listing does not confer protection of
these trees and has not been revised since its assembly in 1986.
Provincial Legislation allows the City to protect "significant trees",
but the City has chosen not to pursue this option to date.
The discussion that follows presents alternatives to retain more trees
and directly responds to Council's request of October 22, 1996 to
examine strategies to prevent some developers from taking advantage of
the one-tree-a-year clause in the By-law.
OPTIONS TO ADDRESS THE UNNECESSARY REMOVAL OF TREES
There are five options that were considered:
Option 1 considers the impact of making no changes at all;
Option 2 eliminates the single-tree removal provision for all
property owners within zones such as RS-5 where landscape
retention guidelines exist;
Option 3 retains the single-tree removal provision except near
the front and back yard property lines in those zones where
these yards are required;
Option 4 eliminates the single-tree removal provision for
development applications; and
Option 5 considers the implications of creating a special
category of "significant trees" that require retention.
Although Council could still consider removing the single tree exemption
on a city-wide basis, this option is only put forward for consideration
on a "zone" or area basis (Option 2), as the existing provision
conflicts with guidelines in specific single-family zones such as RS-5
and RS-6. Staff believe that to remove the single tree exemption on a
city-wide basis would be unnecessary and counterproductive at this time.
OPTION 1: No Changes
This option maintains the existing regulations approved by Council on
July 30, 1996.
Under this option:
the City will continue to lose trees especially near the front
and back property lines; and property owners will retain the flexibility to remove one tree
a year, with the requirement for a permit and a replacement
tree.
OPTION 2: Deletion of the Single-Tree Removal Provision on a Zone or
Area Basis
This option eliminates the single-tree removal allowance for all
property owners in those single-family RS zones where landscape
guidelines specifically state that the retention of landscape features
is required where possible (i.e., RS-5).
Under this option:
all property owners in these areas would be affected, thereby
denying any tree removal by non-development owners unless they
comply with one of the four criteria already specified in the
Private Property Tree By-law; and
it does provide maximum protection for trees outside the
building envelope on development properties and trees on
non-development properties.
The City may also choose to select only one of these single-family
zones, for example RS-5, to experiment with the idea over a six-month
period to see if the option works, before affecting other similar zones.
OPTION 3: Deletion of the Single-Tree Removal Provision near the Front
and Rear Yard Property Lines
Under this option, all property owners will not be allowed single tree
removal near the front or rear property lines (tree protection areas),
unless they fulfill one of the four existing criteria in the By-law.
This will apply to those zones of the city that require front yard and
rear yard setbacks, with the retention area not to exceed four (4)
metres.
Under this option:
tree removal will not be permitted under the one tree a year
provision within 4 m of the front or rear property lines;
flexibility for property owners to remove one tree in each
twelve- month period, subject to a permit and a replacement
tree, will be retained on other parts of the property; and
trees will be retained on all properties in the front and rear
yards within 4 m of the property lines, where the trees are
most highly valued by the community because of their visual
proximity to the adjoining streets and lanes.
OPTION 4: Deletion of the Single-Tree Removal Provision in any
Development Application
This option simply removes the single-tree provision for any development
application.
Under this option:
trees outside the building envelope that do not need to be
removed as a result of redevelopment will be retained;
non-development applicants retain the ability to remove one
tree a year subject to the other provisions of the By-law;
trees on non-development properties will still be lost; and
property owners could still be granted a single-tree removal
permit prior to making a development application or following
building occupancy.
Legal Services have confirmed that, under the existing provincial
legislation regarding trees, the City can not discriminate between
development and non-development applicants under the Private Property
Tree By-law. In order to implement this option, the City would be
required to ask for an amendment to the Provincial Tree Legislation.
OPTION 5: Create a "Significant Tree" Category
Under the current Provincial Tree Legislation, the City is able to
protect "significant trees" that are considered to be important to the
community, including importance for heritage or landmark value or as
wildlife habitat.
If the City chooses to retain "significant trees" within the building
envelope and, therefore, affects the use or density permitted under the
Zoning and Development By-law, then the City is required to compensate
the property owner for any reduction in property value caused by the
prohibition, in accordance with Provincial Tree Legislation.
Alternatively, the City may provide, by development permit, development
variance permit or otherwise, other means for the parcel to be used for
a permitted use or developed to the permitted density.
Under this option:
all "significant trees" will be retained outside the building
envelope;
the single-tree removal provision will be retained for other
trees on the property;
less flexibility will be provided for property owners for tree
removal except pursuant to the four criteria in the By-law;
and
the City will have to provide compensation or other means for
development or use, if the City chooses to retain "significant
trees" within the building envelope.
CONCLUSIONS AND OPTION FOR CONSIDERATION
Except for Option 1, the other four options propose an increase in tree
regulation on private property. These four other options reduce the
flexibility afforded by the one-tree-a-year removal provision approved
last year by Council and would require more work in terms of
inspections, enforcement and associated administration. However, trees
continue to be removed that do not need to be removed for reasons other
than specified under the By-law. This is especially evident in
development situations where a development applicant chooses the
one-tree-a-year provision to remove a tree that does not conflict with
the building improvements proposed on the property.
Options 2 and 5 both represent the most extreme measures of tree
regulation on private property. While not recommended at this time,
these two options could be considered in the future. As Option 4 is not
feasible under current Provincial Tree Legislation, Option 3 is
presented for CONSIDERATION. In contrast to Option 4, that would only
affect development applicants, Option 3 would affect all property owners
and limit tree removal near the front and rear property lines. Option 3
would help protect those trees in those areas most highly valued by the
surrounding community since they are bordering either the street or
lane. On balance, however, Option 3 is only put forward for
CONSIDERATION since it still represents a significant increase in tree
regulation on private property, affects all property owners and reduces
all property owners flexibility in ongoing property maintenance.
Irrespective of the other five options, what is still recommended is a
By-law amendment that would require property owners to locate a garage
or other accessory building to retain a tree where it is appropriate to
do so. This By-law amendment would save more trees with minimal impact
on other aspects of the By-law. At the present time, 29% of the trees
on development properties are removed because of a proposed garage.
This By-law amendment would affect at least a portion of these trees
that could be saved with the adjustment of the proposed garage or other
accessory building locations.
PROGRAMS TO PROMOTE FURTHER TREE RETENTION AND PLANTING
The Private Property Tree By-law could be further enhanced with other
programs that support education, tree planting and encourage significant
tree retention. These suggested programs are outlined in the discussion
that follows.
The Tree Voucher Program: The City has received strong community support
and excellent feedback from the Tree Voucher Program that was launched
in September, 1996. The Tree Voucher Program is a co-operative effort
between the City, Green Streets Canada and the B.C. Nursery Trades
Association, that promotes a 3,000 tree planting program on private
property. SUCCESS (United Chinese Community Enrichment Services Society)
and MOSAIC (Multilingual Orientation Services Association for Immigrant
Communities) have also joined in the partnership to fund the printing of
promotional material and translate the information for Vancouver's
multicultural communities. From September 3 to October 26, 1996, almost
two-thirds, or 1,900 of the 3,000 vouchers were sold. Approximately 59%
of the purchasers were residents of the West side, 38% were residents of
the East side and 3% lived in the Downtown area.
A spring program to sell the balance of the 1,100 vouchers began April
1st and was sold out by April 17, 1997. This allowed new participants
to take advantage of a wide selection of plants for the spring planting
season. Based on the excellent response to the Tree Voucher Program,
staff are currently working with the program partners to develop
alternatives for 1998.
Landscape Preservation Awards Program: As a second initiative to
encourage tree retention, especially in new development or
redevelopment, staff are recommending that the City further encourage
submissions of outstanding tree retention examples for recognition under
the City's existing Heritage Awards Program. The submissions could be
put forward under the existing Landscape Preservation Category of the
Heritage Awards Program. This would provide additional exposure for tree
retention efforts and further endorsement for saving trees as part of
the development process.
The Vancouver Tree Trust: In cases where a tree is of heritage value,
financial support could be considered to help retain the tree in the
form of a Tree Trust.
Staff still need to determine the detailed requirements of setting up a
Tree Trust, possibly under Vancouver's existing Heritage Foundation. As
of January 1997, the new Executive Director of the Heritage Foundation
will be working for six months to advise on the mandate of the
Foundation. Initial conversations with Heritage staff have taken place,
but the details regarding administration and operational feasibility of
the Tree Trust have yet to be defined. Staff might find that a Tree
Trust not associated directly with the Heritage Foundation, that has
broader application and flexibility for general tree planting, education
and preservation, would be more beneficial to the City as a whole.
Staff will report back to Council once these details have been
determined. In addition, some preliminary conversations with potential
funding sources have taken place and staff are encouraged by potential
financial support for tree planting, education and preservation that
could be assembled through a Tree Trust or similar vehicle.
The "Neighbourhood Trees for You" Program: The recently initiated
Neighbourhood Trees For You program should be further developed to
provide neighbourhood-based education and support for tree retention and
landscape development. This program is an important catalyst for the
previously-mentioned awards initiative and Tree Trust. The goal is to
develop one of these Neighbourhood Trees for You groups in each
neighbourhood across the City to provide a local support network and a
direct line of communication for City staff. To date, staff have had
little time to concentrate on this program because of the introduction
of the tree-permitting process and the associated administration. It is
anticipated that later in 1997 more time will be available for community
outreach to further develop the Neighbourhood Trees For You program.
ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS TO THE BY-LAW
Generally, property owners have cooperated with the new tree-permitting
process. A brochure entitled "Tree By-law Update", along with our tree
information telephone line, have helped clarify the City's requirements
and process, especially for non-development applicants.
Staff are currently investigating a few cases where there has been tree
removal without a permit or trees were removed that were to be retained
as part of a development application. Replacement trees and tree damage
during construction continue to be problems that are being reduced by
the efforts of our new Landscape Inspector.
To provide a more realistic minimum fine in those cases such as
non-compliance with tree replacement requirements, staff recommend
reducing the minimum fine in the By-law from $5,000 to $500.
Unfortunately, the existing $5,000 minimum fine leaves no flexibility
for the courts to determine a specific fine for lesser violations. As a
result, the courts would likely choose to either suspend the sentence or
call for no fine at all. The recommended reduction to the minimum fine
provides the additional flexibility necessary for the courts to
determine the most appropriate fine. Still, other more severe tree
removal violations could be open to stiffer fines up to the maximum
$20,000, depending on the circumstances.
Other Private Property Tree By-law amendments, attached as Appendix A,
clarify specific sections of the By-law so that violations and other
procedures associated with enforcement are clearly stated. Another
change to the By-law exempts public utilities, Engineering Services and
the Board of Parks and Recreation from permit requirements. This
recognizes the normal maintenance and infrastructure improvements
carried out by these bodies that should not require tree permits to
carry out the work. This does not include designated Heritage
Landscapes under the Heritage By-law (i.e., Cambie Street Boulevard).
ADMINISTRATION AND STAFFING IMPLICATIONS
No additional staff are recommended at this time as the additional
program elements recommended in this report will be accommodated by
existing staff. The additional permitting process for one-tree removal
a year has been addressed by the new staff additions approved by Council
on July 30, 1996.
Currently, the Tree By-law and Landscape Review Group is responsible for
administering the tree-permitting process and other landscape plan
reviews associated with development. Staff are also responsible for
site inspections in liaison with Building and Property Use Inspectors.
In addition, they review development applications that have landscape
requirements in accordance with special streetscape and zoning
guidelines. The new Tree Information Line (receiving up to 20-30 calls
per day) and the Tree Voucher Program (3,000 trees) are other recent
additions to the staffs' responsibilities. Staff are also involved in
special programs such as Greenways, streetscape improvements and
heritage landscapes. For example, the Street Boulevard Landscape
Guidelines and Approval Process were developed by staff in 1996 in
liaison with the Board of Parks and Recreation and Engineering Services.
The total staff of 8 in the Tree By-law and Landscape Review Group
include the recent additions of a Landscape Inspector and a
Correspondence Clerk who assist in enforcement, and two Landscape
Architectural Technicians, who focus on the single-tree permitting
process and information. Three other Landscape Architectural
Technicians and the Senior Landscape Architect focus more on development
applications and policy issues, ranging from single-family housing
through to the downtown mega-projects.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The Tree Program currently costs the City approximately $596,000 each
year in staffing and operating costs. Approximately 35% of this cost
comes from the August 1996 staff additions required to undertake the
administration and inspection requirements of the tree-permitting
additions to the By-law. Of the $596,000 in staffing and operating
costs, it is estimated that approximately 85% is cost recoverable
through development permit and tree permit fees, since approximately 15%
of staff time is spent on policy and special programs such as the Tree
Voucher Program. Of the recoverable costs, an estimated 75% is
attributable to development permit work. This is currently recovered
through development permit fees. The balance of 25% consists of work
associated with non-development tree permit fees which is recovered, to
the extent possible, through tree permit fees (see Appendix D for
details).
The exact cost recovery for landscape review through development permit
fees is hard to determine with the various additional review
requirements recently added in several of the RS single-family zones.
This has been reported to Council separately as part of the recent
development, subdivision and rezoning fee report.
Council's decision to reduce the single tree removal application/permit
fee from $50 to $10 has resulted in a shortfall of an estimated $16,000
in a 4-month period or potentially $48,000 on an annualized basis.
Overall, it represents an 8% shortfall in cost recovery for the Tree
By-law and Landscape Review Group.
Consequently, to compensate for this permit fee shortfall, staff present
for consideration an adjustment to the permit fees. Single tree permits
fees would increase to $40, while multiple-tree permit fees would
increase to $90 for each tree removed. Based on the estimated number of
permits, this should allow cost recovery on the non-development tree
permit portion of the tree program.(see Appendix D, Note 3, for
details).
In the case of single tree permits, the increase is $30 over the
existing $10 permit fee. Considering that the administrative cost of issuing a tree permit exceeds $50, this is a reasonable increase. At
the same time, Council's original intention of the single-tree-a-year
provision was to provide flexibility for home owners to remove
one-tree-a-year for necessary property maintenance, subject to a
replacement tree. To consider a more significant increase could create
an unnecessary hardship for some property owners and effectively
decrease the intended flexibility.
On the other hand, the multiple tree permits fee increase, from $50 for
the first permit and $20 for each permit thereafter, to $90 for each
tree, represents a more significant increase. The net difference is $40
for the first tree and $70 for each tree thereafter. This multiple tree
fee increase provides for full cost recovery, while reducing the fee
increase necessary for single-tree permits. Given the choice, the
City s interest is better served through more significant fee increases
for multiple tree permits, as the removal of multiple trees creates the
highest impact on neighbourhood character, and should be discouraged
where possible. However, a higher permit fee could potentially result
in higher non-compliance, particularly from those property owners for
whom a higher fee might constitute a financial hardship.
OTHER LANDSCAPE AND TREE RELATED CONCERNS
Considering staff work loads and the continued refinement of the Private
Property Tree By-law, an expansion of the tree section of the Heritage
Register is not recommended at this time. However, with the recent
addition of a Landscape Inspector, City staff will complete a field
check this year of the 41 trees listed in the 1986 Heritage Register.
Heritage staff can then incorporate these finding into the City s annual
Heritage Register update this fall. As an additional precautionary
measure, staff will also flag these trees in the permit system to alert
tree staff in the event of any proposed alterations to these sites.
The further development of the "Neighbourhood Trees For You" program
could have each community identify important trees in their
neighbourhood. This could be one basis to help identify and add trees to
the City's Heritage Register and flag areas of "significant trees".
However, this tree identification will probably identify more trees that
will satisfy the established criteria in the Heritage Register (visual
interest, historical importance and environmental context). The trees
that do fulfill the established heritage criteria could be added to the
Heritage Register and flagged within the permit system. Other lists
could be used as a general inventory of trees noted on the City's
Geographical Information System. Clearly, the assembly of a
comprehensive city-wide tree inventory would be a major undertaking. The
feasibility of these preliminary program ideas need further examination
and will be reported back to Council before further actions will be
taken.
Staff are continuing the process of improving landscape guidelines,
review and inspections required to better ensure high quality landscape
improvements. Other outstanding concerns include stimulating more tree
planting in those areas of the City that are deficient, and the
potential conflict between the Private Property Tree By-law and the
Untidy Premises By-law, which can require properties to be cleared of
trees. These issues will continue to be examined. Amendments to the
Vancouver Charter are not recommended at this time. These will be
further considered with the continuing experience from the Private
Property Tree By-law.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
The recommended tree program improvements will reinforce the City's
continued commitment to protect trees where possible and enhance the
urban forest.
CONCLUSION
This report RECOMMENDS that:
the Private Property Tree By-law be amended so that property
owners are required to locate a proposed garage or other
accessory building to retain a tree where appropriate;
Engineering Services, Board of Parks and Recreation, and
public utilities be exempted from the requirements of the
By-law;
the minimum fine be decreased from $5,000 to $500 to provide a
better direct relationship with more minor violations such as
deficient tree replacement;
staff further pursue the feasibility of a Tree Trust and the
active support of Tree Preservation awards, possibly under the
existing City of Vancouver Heritage Foundation; and
other Private Property Tree By-law amendments be approved,
that clarify the enforcement areas of the By-law.
The corresponding policy changes are included in Appendix A, as well as
housekeeping changes in Appendix B, as amendments to the Private
Property Tree By-law.
In addition, this report presents the following for Council's
CONSIDERATION:
a tree permit fee increase, consistent with Council s policy
for cost recovery; and
that the one-tree-a-year removal provision in the Private
Property Tree By-law not be available in the areas close to
the front and rear yard property lines (Option 3), in order to
discourage further tree removal.
* * * * *