[CANUFNET] tree protection

Tue Jan 17 16:01:11 EST 2017

Hello All,

As a member of Steve and Nadia's' team here at the City of Surrey along with Emily ,where we enjoy a very robust level of work, I would agree with the comments from my esteemed colleagues and those from Julian and Ken Snowden from Abbotsford in that each tree and site needs to be considered independently and as a "custom project" each time and that all of the elements on the given site should be carefully and diligently examined each time to determine as to whether or not we have the "right tree(s)" worth saving is the crux of the problem. It is nearly impossible to generalize the process and therefore set the unrealistic expectation that we can somehow paint the picture with a broad brush in our collective effort to "expedite" the process. This is simply not possible.

I further agree with Emily's comments in that when examining tree retention through the development process that the order of the day should be "inclusion" as opposed to "exclusion" of all the stakeholders developers, private consulting arborists, municipal staff involved in private property and municipal staff involved with public land as a "community" and presuming good intent through all of the party members, its only then that we can collectively come to the "best decisions" regarding what's "left over" after the development that is an inevitable fact-of life in most of our communities.

Most of us in the municipalities are all too aware that having the best tree preservation bylaw in the world means very little if you do not have the required number of trained staff to administer/enforce it from day one but of course it's often instituted the other way around ala the "Field of Dreams" fashion. One of the ways that we address this short coming here at Surrey is the required inclusion of certified private consulting arborist to attend to sites to supervise simple procedures such as Demo work and service relocation to the more complicated projects involving heavily treed sites just to name a few. We at the City of Surrey have largely had good results with this scheme and have enjoyed a very open and  inclusive relationship with our private arborists and their customers.

I would further add that these are great times to be in involved the world of urban forestry/ arboriculture as we collectively "sink our teeth" into richness of this field, it does not obviously come without significant challenges but I would say that largely we are winning towards the goal of having a robust, diverse urban forest for our children to enjoy for years to come.

That's my 2 and a half cents anyways,

Grady Lazenby | City Arborist
ISA PN-7304A/ TRAQ Certified Tree Risk Assessor

[COS_Tag_pp_cmyk-200]

CITY OF SURREY
Planning and Development/ Trees and Landscape Section
13450 104th Ave, Surrey, BC, Canada V3T 1V8
T 604.591.4331  www.Grady.Lazenby at surrey.ca

[Social Media Icons_email_GREEN]<http://www.surrey.ca/12392.aspx> [Social Media Icons_City Speaks_GREEN] <http://www.surrey.ca/city-government/13146.aspx>  [Social Media Icons_Twitter_GREEN] <https://twitter.com/cityofsurrey>  [Social Media Icons_FB_GREEN] <https://www.facebook.com/TheCityofSurrey>  [Social Media Icons_YT_GREEN] <http://www.youtube.com/TheCityofSurrey>  [Social Media Icons_linkedin_GREEN] <http://www.linkedin.com/company/city-of-surrey>

Connect, Share and Engage with your City

From: CANUFNET [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net] On Behalf Of Hamilton, Emily via CANUFNET
Sent: January-17-17 10:36 AM
To: Liveanu, Robert; Canadian Urban Forest Network; Meagan Hanna; Jennifer Gagné
Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] tree protection

Hello all, re: Robert,

Naomi is right that a Bylaw's strength lies in how well it can be enforced. Enforceability seems to be best achieved when you have all the tools in your belt because you never know what will work best in each scenario (I'm writing from City of Surrey, Trees and Landscape with Steve and Nadia). Starting big with enforcement and pulling back is often a good tactic as well. So, if you have something built into the system where you can 1) delay the project through stop-work or stop-inspections, 2) withhold securities (ie - all landscape securities will be held until this one tree issue is addressed; or - bonding will not be released for an additional 2 years until we are sure the tree has survived or recovered from an undetermined degree of damage), 3) impose fines, and 4) require replacement trees or mitigation requirements, etc. then you can apply as many as seem appropriate and pull back as a concession.

As to the collaboration issue - yes, the more teams, departments, disciplines on board the better. On our team, we check that subsurface elements, such as drainage, structural soil, etc. are also coordinated on Civil Plans. This is important, depending on how business is conducted in your community, but often the bid packages are based on Civil drawings and not all of the Landscape Plans are included at that stage. If structural soil is not on the Civil plans (and therefore not in the bid package), it likely won't be budgeted for by the builder and difficult to have installed. Generally, understanding what the other teams do and how everyone can collaborate and support each other also strengthens each team's Bylaw.

And finally, winning small wins at the beginning, rather than going for the grand slam, helps build strength to support the Bylaw over time. As you build more precedent setting examples and test the waters (how will Council support the work?, what staffing and budget is needed to carry it out?, what responses to the public are most successful?, what fee/security amounts work without killing the whole process?, etc.), the Bylaw will build strength and anything that is missing will come to light for the next revision.

Regards,
Emily
Emily Hamilton | Environmental Technician - Arboriculture

CITY OF SURREY
Trees and Landscape Section, Building Division - Planning and Development
13450 104th Ave, Surrey, BC, Canada V3T 1V8
T 604.591.4560 www.surrey.ca/treeprotection<www.surrey.ca>

From: CANUFNET [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net] On Behalf Of Liveanu, Robert via CANUFNET
Sent: January-17-17 7:16 AM
To: Meagan Hanna; Canadian Urban Forest Network; Jennifer Gagné
Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] tree protection

Hi all,

Very interesting discussion on a complex matter. I'd also like to add a frustrating issue that I've come across: if we take Jennifer Gagné's example of fines exceeding $10,000, it may at first sound like a hefty amount, but I imagine that for multimillion dollar companies, it's not much of a deterrent for the developers. I work at a very wealthy municipality, and so even when it's regular residents who accidentally (or "accidentally") illegally injure or remove a tree, any monetary penalty is pocket change for many of them.

I also agree with Meagan - since construction and development is handled by our engineer/urban planner colleagues, it's important to collaborate and communicate with them to ensure that trees are included in any plans, and to from the start visit the construction sites and speak to the developers.

Best,
Robert

Robert Liveanu, MFC, B.Sc.
Foresterie urbaine / Urban Forestry
Service des travaux publics / Public Works department
514-989-5291
rliveanu at westmount.org<mailto:rliveanu at westmount.org>
[Description: Description: cid:image001.png at 01D159A9.842E0A90]

From: CANUFNET [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net] On Behalf Of Meagan Hanna via CANUFNET
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 7:38 PM
To: Jennifer Gagné; Canadian Urban Forest Network
Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] tree protection

Hi Michelle,

This might not be overly helpful seeing as all of the bylaws I've dealt with are in French. Nevertheless, here are some examples :

- Tree Protection By-Law reg.1915, borough of Saint-Léonard Montreal Quebec (translation is totally doable by copying and pasting into Google Translate).

Saint-Léonard's by-law dates back to 1991 which was ahead of the curve for our area. Most municipalities either still do not have tree protection by-laws or they are not effectively enforced. The problem isn't usually having the by-law, it's enforcing it. I recall enforcing the by-law highly problematic, especially when the development plans were already approved before the Parks Division was consulted and asked to give tree protection specs. The minute you get a say during the project design phase is the minute you'll most likely start seeing more feasible projects and more tree actually being protected. Collaboration with other departments and getting the urbanists on board with tree protection is key!

- Excerpts from City of Westmount Zoning By-Law 1303 (has likely been updated), article 15.11.5, Very vague, but it's a start.

Best of luck and please so share the result with us!

All the best,

Meg

Meagan Hanna, MA.
meagan.hanna at mail.mcgill.ca<mailto:meagan.hanna at mail.mcgill.ca>
________________________________
From: CANUFNET <canufnet-bounces at list.web.net<mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net>> on behalf of Jennifer Gagné via CANUFNET <canufnet at list.web.net<mailto:canufnet at list.web.net>>
Sent: January 16, 2017 3:58:13 PM
To: Chartier, Michelle (CY - Parks); Canadian Urban Forest Network
Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] tree protection

Hi Michelle,

A lot of municipalities require permits to remove AND injure trees. For example, in Toronto when a homeowner, developer, etc would like to work within the tree protection zone of a protected tree, they must submit a permit to injure that tree accompanied by an arborist report prepared by a certified arborist that can demonstrate that the excavation, regrading, storage of materials etc. will not affect the stability or long-term health of the tree. If that can't be demonstrated, then the plans are to be revised or the tree will require removal and the developer will have to pay the value of the tree, which is over $10,000 in many cases.

Jennifer

--

Jennifer Gagné, MFC, ISA Certified Arborist

Consulting Arborist

Bruce Tree Expert Company Ltd.

3-1750 The Queensway, Suite 1329

Toronto ON M9C 5H5

P: 416.252.8769

C: 647.966.0353

F: 416.252.4574

www.brucetree.com<http://www.brucetree.com>

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Chartier, Michelle (CY - Parks) via CANUFNET <canufnet at list.web.net<mailto:canufnet at list.web.net>> wrote:
Hi all,

I'm trying to track down samples of city policies or bylaws related to tree protection that effectively balance the protection of established trees and new in-fill building. Saskatoon is currently seeing several large building projects and homes being built in established neighbourhoods where the work site is surrounded by large valuable City trees. We currently have a City Council policy in place that provide Urban Forestry with direction related to tree protection. As part of this policy we do not remove large (>15cm" diameter) healthy trees for development. However we are finding ourselves in a difficult position of attempting to work with construction companies hired to build what does not reasonably allow for preservation or protection of the existing tree(s). In some cases the building footprint requires excavation that will result in ~40%-50% root removal. Often the damage is done on the private property side when our City trees are close to property lines or in some cases straddle property lines (funny how tree roots just don't respect property lines).

I know there are several cities that have tree protection bylaws and some also protect private trees. I'm wondering if anyone knows of a really good example that might include standards that include what can and can't be done on private property adjacent to City trees. I'd also like to know if anyone can share their experience or views (what has worked and what hasn't worked) with existing Bylaw or policies.

Thanks,

Michelle Chartier
City of Saskatoon
Community Services, Parks Division
Superintendent - Urban Forestry/Pest Management
Ph: 306.975-2537<tel:(306)%20975-2537>  Fax: 306.975.3034<tel:(306)%20975-3034>
michelle.chartier at saskatoon.ca<mailto:michelle.chartier at saskatoon.ca>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20170117/0d82e36d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 14473 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20170117/0d82e36d/attachment-0007.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4269 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20170117/0d82e36d/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2627 bytes
Desc: image005.png
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20170117/0d82e36d/attachment-0008.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2269 bytes
Desc: image007.png
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20170117/0d82e36d/attachment-0009.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2146 bytes
Desc: image009.png
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20170117/0d82e36d/attachment-0010.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image011.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1841 bytes
Desc: image011.png
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20170117/0d82e36d/attachment-0011.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image013.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2489 bytes
Desc: image013.png
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20170117/0d82e36d/attachment-0012.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image015.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1902 bytes
Desc: image015.png
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20170117/0d82e36d/attachment-0013.png>