2319 CHILCO ROAD TREE PERMIT

TOWN OF VIEW ROYAL COUNCIL REPORT

TO: Council
DATE: January 30, 2025
FROM: Ivan Leung, P.Eng, Director of Engineering
MEETING DATE: March 4, 2025

2319 CHILCO ROAD TREE PERMIT

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the owner of 2319 Chilco Road be required to replant up to 14 replacement trees in suitable areas on the site or provide a combination of cash in lieu at $500 per tree and tree replacement in accordance with the Town’s Tree Protection Bylaw in effect at the time of the original permit application in 2022.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS:

Option #2: THAT Council vary the Tree Protection Bylaw for the 2319 Chilco Road tree permit, in accordance with the 2319 Chilco Road strata’s original variance request of:

• reducing the tree replacement ratio to a 1:1 replacement; and
• accepting a $500/tree cash in lieu for all replacement trees.

Option #3: THAT Council vary the Tree Protection Bylaw for the 2319 Chilco Road tree permit, by

• requiring the strata to plant up to 14 tree saplings or young trees within the Strata’s greenspace areas of suitable size and species to maximize survivability;
• accepting a $500/tree cash in lieu for each sapling / young tree not planted if the total 14 trees cannot be achieved; and
• requiring the Strata to maintain the tree saplings or young trees for an establishment period of 3 years.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to respond to Council’s motion C-134-24 from the October 1, 2024 Council meeting:

“THAT the email dated September 5, 2024 from C. Smith, President, Stonecliffe Strata Council, Re: Reconsideration of Tree Replanting be tabled pending the receipt of additional information.”

Per the Tree Protection Bylaw, the Strata has a right to appeal decisions made in accordance with the Bylaw. With the additional information provided in this report, staff is seeking a decision from Council on how to move forward with the 2319 Chilco Road tree permit file.

BACKGROUND:

The driver behind the Strata’s request (Attachment 1) for a variance was included in their letter regarding the “unacceptable location values” of the trees that were planted at the time of development (circa 2011). The Strata’s position was that the tree replacement requirement was unfair to the Strata as the tree species installed at the time of development were not appropriate and they should not be responsible to bear the results of this.

The planted trees that were deemed to have unacceptable location values were located within close proximity of the building envelope. These locations provide little room for root growth given the species of trees that were planted. While seven trees were identified now as requiring removal, the Strata states that several more trees in the same vicinity may need to be removed in the future for the same reasons.

Figure 1 identifies the general location of the seven trees requested for removal in the original Tree Permit, identified as having poor location values or dead:

Figure 1: 7 Trees to be removed per initial Tree Permit

Additional tree information is described in Table 1:

Table 1: Tree Inventory (Bartlett Tree Experts (June 2020). 2319 Chilco Road Tree Inventory and Management Plan).

Figure 2: Tree #45 – Example of Poor Location Value

The Strata’s original variance request was the following:

• That Council reconsider applying the Bylaw so rigorously and that a 1:1 tree replacement be amenable instead of the Bylaw’s 2:1 tree replacement requirement;
• That Council accept cash in lieu of the 1:1 replacement ratio, at $500 per tree; and
• That Council send an arborist to review the naturally regenerated trees along the border of their property to consider them being suitable and acceptable replacement trees.

Additional Site Visit (October 18, 2024)

Staff and the Town’s contracted arborist attended the site with the Strata and their arborist to review the site for potential replanting areas. Staff observations were as follows:

• Overall, the grassy lawn areas were noted to not have enough soil to plant trees that would be conducive to long term health. This was confirmed by the Strata’s arborist; and
• Some regrowth trees (from saplings to small, young trees) appeared to be growing healthily in the natural greenspaces throughout the property. Species included Arbutus, False Cypress, Douglas / Grand Fir, Maple, Hemlock and Cedar.

Figure 3: Insufficient Ground Cover in Lawn Area (Left: SW corner of lot, Right: near entrance)

Figure 4: Naturally Occurring Regrowth – Arbutus and Fir (left), 2 Firs (right)

Figure 5: Naturally Occurring Regrowth – 4 Firs (left), 1 Maple (right)

DISCUSSION:

Town staff agree that the existing open space and lawn areas are not a suitable space for replacement trees unless soil volumes are increased by either importing topsoil or excavating the area and refilling with topsoil: both options are relatively costly for the Strata given the rock and fill conditions of the site.

The Strata has confirmed that the trees within the boulevard and strata road areas are irrigated on a private system. While additional trees in these boulevard areas may be possible, it would be relatively costly for the same reasons noted above.

While unfortunate that trees are removed due to poor location values, these trees would not have matured to provide significant shade benefits, would have limited improvements to the tree canopy, and are located in regions that are generally inaccessible. Replanting with similar species in the same locations of the removed trees will likely result in a similar fate. Therefore, Development Services confirm that even though the replacement of these trees with the same tree species is not a requirement, it is recommended that these areas be replanted with some sort of vegetation that is suitable for the space and provides a softscape buffer that reduces impervious surface areas.