Council Meeting/Documents/S. Bowen, Urban Systems, Re: Regional Water Supply Development Cost Charge Bylaw
Delegation
S. Bowen, Urban Systems, Re: Regional Water Supply Development Cost Charge Bylaw
November 7, 2023Pages 154–1786 sections
A delegation presentation from Urban Systems regarding the Regional Water Supply Development Cost Charge (DCC) Bylaw.
Regional Water SupplyDevelopment Cost Charge Bylaw
SYNCHRO MODELLING SOFTWARE DESCRIPTION
The traffic analysis was completed using Synchro and SimTraffic traffic modeling software. Results were measured in delay, level of service (LOS) and 95th percentile queue length. Synchro is based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. SimTraffic integrates established driver behaviours and characteristics to simulate actual conditions by randomly "seeding" or positioning vehicles travelling throughout the network. The simulation is run five times (five different random seedings of vehicle types, behaviours and arrivals) to obtain statistical significance of the results.
Levels of Service
Traffic operations are typically described in terms of levels of service, which rates the amount of delay per vehicle for each movement and the entire intersection. Levels of service range from LOS A (representing best operations) to LOS E/F (LOS E being poor operations and LOS F being unpredictable / disruptive operations). LOS E/F are generally unacceptable levels of service under normal everyday conditions.
The hierarchy of criteria for grading an intersection or movement not only includes delay times, but also takes into account traffic control type (stop signs or traffic signal). For example, if a vehicle is delayed for 19 seconds at an unsignalized intersection, it is considered to have an average operation, and would therefore be graded as an LOS C. However, at a signalized intersection, a 19 second delay would be considered a good operation and therefore it would be given an LOS B. The table below indicates the range of delay for LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections.
Table A1: LOS Criteria, by Intersection Traffic Control
| Level of Service | Unsignalized Intersection Average Vehicle Delay (sec/veh) | Signalized Intersection Average Vehicle Delay (sec/veh) |
|---|---|---|
| A | Less than 10 | Less than 10 |
| B | 10 to 15 | 11 to 20 |
| C | 15 to 25 | 20 to 35 |
| D | 25 to 35 | 35 to 55 |
| E | 35 to 50 | 55 to 80 |
| F | More than 50 | More than 80 |
Page 154–178
APPENDIX B: PRELIMINARY LEFT TURN LANE DESIGN
Page 154–178
APPENDIX C: TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT RESULTS
| Development Scenario | Opening Day Pre-Development AM | Opening Day Pre-Development PM | Opening Day Post-Development AM | Opening Day Post-Development PM | 2035 10-year Horizon Pre-Development AM | 2035 10-year Horizon Pre-Development PM | 2035 10-year Horizon Post-Development AM | 2035 10-year Horizon Post-Development PM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Traffic Volumes | ||||||||
| Major Leg (EB + WB) | 1427 | 1667 | 1449 | 1727 | 1607 | 1876 | 1631 | 1938 |
| Minor Leg (NB, peak direction only) | 17 | 13 | 91 | 51 | 19 | 14 | 93 | 53 |
| Warrant | Warrant Met? | |||||||
| Warrant 1: Minimum Vehicular Volume | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| - Major Street combined Vol (vph) > 500? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| - Minor Street combined Vol (vph) > 150? | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| Warrant 2: Interruption of Continuous Traffic | N | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | N |
| - Major Street combined Vol (vph) > 750vph? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| - Minor Street combined Vol (vph) > 75vph? | N | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | N |
| - Will signal seriously interrupt traffic flow? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Warrant 3: Progressive Movement | NA | |||||||
| Warrant 4: Collision Experience | 6 COLLISIONS IN LAST 5 YEARS (4 PDO + 2 CASUALTY) | |||||||
| Warrant 5: System Warrant | N | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | N |
| - Total entering volumes > 1000vph? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| - Meets Warrant 1 | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| - Meets Warrant 2 | N | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | N |
| - Meets Warrant 6 | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| - Meets Warrant 7 | N | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | N |
| - Meets Warrant 9 | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| Warrant 6: Combination Warrant | NA | |||||||
| Warrant 7: Four Hour Volume Warrant | LACK DATA TO RUN WARRANT BUT LIKELY MET FOR POST DEVELOPMENT AM PEAK | |||||||
| - Minor Street combined Vol (vph) > 80vph? | N | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | N |
| Warrant 8: Peak Hour Delay (All 3 Conditions must be met) | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| - One leg of minor >= four vehicle-hours delay (vhd) | N | N | Y (4.02) | N (2.95) | N | N | Y (7.21) | Y (6.51) |
| - One leg of minor >= 100 vph | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| - Total intersection volumes >= 800 vph | N | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y |
| Warrant 9: Peak Hour Volume | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| - One leg of minor >= 100 vph | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| Total Number of Warrants Met? | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Page 154–178
APPENDIX D: SYNCHRO RESULTS
HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Prince Robert Dr/RV Park Access (North Leg) & Island Hwy View Royal 2025 PD AM
| Intersection | |
|---|---|
| Int Delay, s/veh | 11.5 |
| Movement | EBL | EBT | EBR | WBL | WBT | WBR | NBL | NBT | NBR | SBL | SBT | SBR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lane Configurations | ||||||||||||
| Traffic Vol, veh/h | 4 | 878 | 14 | 26 | 531 | 0 | 32 | 0 | 59 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Future Vol, veh/h | 4 | 878 | 14 | 26 | 531 | 0 | 32 | 0 | 59 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Conflicting Peds, #/hr | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sign Control | Free | Free | Free | Free | Free | Free | Stop | Stop | Stop | Stop | Stop | Stop |
| RT Channelized | - | - | None | - | - | None | - | - | None | - | - | None |
| Storage Length | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Veh in Median Storage, # | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | - |
| Grade, % | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | - |
| Peak Hour Factor | 50 | 87 | 63 | 67 | 84 | 92 | 70 | 92 | 70 | 92 | 92 | 92 |
| Heavy Vehicles, % | 2 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Mvmt Flow | 8 | 1009 | 22 | 39 | 632 | 0 | 46 | 0 | 84 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Major/Minor | Major1 | Major2 | Minor1 | Minor2 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conflicting Flow All | 632 | 0 | 0 | 1033 | 0 | 0 | 1750 | 1748 | 1022 | 1788 | 1759 | 634 |
| Stage 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1038 | 1038 | - | 710 | 710 | - |
| Stage 2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 712 | 710 | - | 1078 | 1049 | - |
| Critical Hdwy | 4.12 | - | - | 4.12 | - | - | 7.1 | 6.52 | 6.29 | 7.12 | 6.52 | 6.22 |
| Critical Hdwy Stg 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 6.1 | 5.52 | - | 6.12 | 5.52 | - |
| Critical Hdwy Stg 2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 6.1 | 5.52 | - | 6.12 | 5.52 | - |
| Follow-up Hdwy | 2.218 | - | - | 2.218 | - | - | 3.5 | 4.018 | 3.381 | 3.518 | 4.018 | 3.318 |
| Pot Cap-1 Maneuver | 951 | - | - | 673 | - | - | 68 | 86 | 278 | 63 | 85 | 479 |
| Stage 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 281 | 308 | - | 424 | 437 | - |
| Stage 2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 427 | 437 | - | 265 | 304 | - |
| Platoon blocked, % | - | - | - | - | ||||||||
| Mov Cap-1 Maneuver | 951 | - | - | 672 | - | - | 62 | 77 | 277 | 40 | 76 | 478 |
| Mov Cap-2 Maneuver | - | - | - | - | - | - | 62 | 77 | - | 40 | 76 | - |
| Stage 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 275 | 301 | - | 416 | 398 | - |
| Stage 2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 388 | 398 | - | 181 | 297 | - |
| Approach | EB | WB | NB | SB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HCM Control Delay, s | 0.1 | 0.6 | 159.2 | 0 |
| HCM LOS | F | A |
| Minor Lane/Major Mvmt | NBLn1 | EBL | EBT | EBR | WBL | WBT | WBR | SBLn1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capacity (veh/h) | 125 | 951 | - | - | 672 | - | - | - |
| HCM Lane V/C Ratio | 1.04 | 0.008 | - | - | 0.058 | - | - | - |
| HCM Control Delay (s) | 159.2 | 8.8 | 0 | - | 10.7 | 0 | - | 0 |
| HCM Lane LOS | F | A | A | - | B | A | - | A |
| HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) | 7.3 | 0 | - | - | 0.2 | - | - | - |
Page 154–178
Construction Impact Assessment & Tree Management Plan
339, 341, 345 Island Highway View Royal, BC
PREPARED FOR: Boardwalk REIT PREPARED BY: Talmack Urban Forestry Consultants Ltd Noah Talbot – Consulting Arborist ISA Certified # PN-6822A Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
DATE OF ORIGINAL REPORT ISSUANCE: March 23, 2023 LAST UPDATED: October 12, 2023
REVISION RECORD
| REVISION | DESCRIPTION | DATE (YYYY-MM-DD) | ISSUED BY |
|---|---|---|---|
| R0 | Original TPP report delivered to the client. | 2023-03-23 | NT |
| R1 | Update to original TPP dated 2023-03-23 to reflect review of the updated site plan and additional tree preservation that has been proposed. | 2023-07-05 | NT |
| R2 | Update to R1 TPP dated 2023-07-05 to reflect review of the updated Civil drawings. | 2023-07-10 | NT |
| R3 | Update to R2 TPP dated 2023-07-10 to reflect review of the updated Civil drawings and architectural drawings. Note that the footprint of a proposed childcare area was reviewed (this area was designed in a portion of the site that is relatively open – where we anticipate minimal impacts – pending a review of the detailed design at a later stage). | 2023-10-12 | NT |
1. INTRODUCTION
Talmack Urban Forestry Consultants Ltd. was asked to complete a tree inventory, construction impact assessment and management plan for the trees at the following proposed project:
- Site: 339, 341, 345 Island Highway
- Municipality: View Royal
- Client Name: Boardwalk REIT
- Dates of Site Visit(s): December 12 & 14, 2022
- Site Conditions: 3 urban lots, No ongoing construction activity
- Weather During Site Visit: Overcast
The purpose of this report is to address the tree inventory and arborist report requirements of the Town of View Royal Bylaw No. 695. The construction impact assessment section of this report (section 8), is based on plans reviewed to date, including the conceptual servicing plan & conceptual frontage works plan – October 11, 2023 (prepared by McElhanney Ltd.), and architectural package – October 11, 2023 (prepared by DHK Architects). At this time we have not reviewed a detailed landscape plan.
2. TREE INVENTORY METHODOLOGY
Numerated metal tags were used to identify onsite protected trees and trees located on municipal land. Note that all protected trees (per the definition of a tree in the TOVR Bylaw No. 1069) were inventoried. Trees located on neighbouring properties, within influencing distance of the subject site were not tagged. Each tree was visually examined on a limited visual assessment basis (level 1), in accordance with Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) methods (Dunster et al. 2017) and ISA Best Management Practices.
3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on review of the Architectural site and parkade plan and civil concept plan provided, it is anticipated that 43 onsite trees will require removal to facilitate construction of the proposed apartment buildings and u/g parking structures. 125 onsite trees, 19 municipal trees, 3 municipal hedge and 3 shared ownership trees (located within influencing distance of the proposed development) are located where they are possible for retention. It is recommended that the English Ivy is removed from the trunk and canopies of retained trees.
4. TREE INVENTORY DEFINITIONS
- Tag: Tree identification number on a metal tag attached to tree with nail or wire, generally at eye level. Trees on municipal or neighboring properties are not tagged.
- DBH: Diameter at breast height – diameter of trunk, measured in centimetres at 1.4m above ground level. For trees on a slope, it is taken at the average point between the high and low side of the slope.
- * Measured over ivy
- ~ Approximate due to inaccessibility or on neighbouring property
- Dripline: Indicates the radius of the crown spread measured in metres to the dripline of the longest limbs.
- Relative Tolerance Rating: Relative tolerance of the tree species to construction related impacts such as root pruning, crown pruning, soil compaction, hydrology changes, grade changes, and other soil disturbance. Three ratings are assigned: Poor (P), Moderate (M) or Good (G).
- Critical Root Zone: A calculated radial measurement in metres from the trunk of the tree. It is the optimal size of tree protection zone and is calculated by multiplying the DBH of the tree by 10, 12 or 15 depending on the tree’s Relative Tolerance Rating.
- 15 x DBH = Poor Tolerance of Construction
- 12 x DBH = Moderate
- 10 x DBH = Good
- Health Condition:
- Poor - significant signs of visible stress and/or decline that threaten the long-term survival of the specimen
- Fair - signs of stress
- Good - no visible signs of significant stress and/or only minor aesthetic issues
- Structural Condition:
- Poor - Structural defects that have been in place for a long period of time to the point that mitigation measures are limited
- Fair - Structural concerns that are possible to mitigate through pruning
- Good - No visible or only minor structural flaws that require no to very little pruning
- Suitability Ratings:
- Rating: Suitable. A tree with no visible or minor health or structural defects, is tolerant to changes to the growing environment and is a possible candidate for retention provided that the critical root zone can be adequately protected.
- Rating: Conditional. A tree with good health but is a species with a poor tolerance to changes to its growing environment or has a structural defect(s) that would require that certain measures be implemented.
- Rating: Unsuitable. A tree with poor health, a major structural defect, or a species with a poor tolerance to construction impacts, and unlikely to survive long term.
- Retention Status:
- Remove - Not possible to retain given proposed construction plans
- Retain - It is possible to retain this tree in the long-term given the proposed plans and information available.
- Retain * - See report for more information regarding potential impacts
Table 1. Tree Inventory
Page 154–178
| Tag # | Location | Bylaw protected | Common Name | Botanical Name | DBH (cm) | Dripline radius (m) | Critical root zone radius (m) | Condition Health | Condition Structural | Relative tolerance | Retention suitability | General field observations/remarks | Tree Retention Comments | Retention status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2227 | On | Yes | Willow | Salix sp. | 23, 23, 19, 36, 8, 12, 10, 8, 8, 8, 10 | 4 | 7.6 | Fair | Fair to poor | Moderate | unsuitable | Basal and trunk decay, stem failures with associated decay, cluster stems | Will be impacted by excavation required for the footprint of the proposed u/g parking structure and sidewalk. | Remove |
| 2228 | On | Yes | Big leaf maple | Acer macrophyllum | 34 | 3 | 4.1 | Fair | Fair | Moderate | conditional | Asymmetrical crown, codominant with adjacent trees, small deadwood | The project arborist to supervise all excavation required within the critical root zone. | Retain |
| 2229 | City | Yes | Big leaf maple | Acer macrophyllum | 39 | 5 | 4.7 | Fair to poor | Poor | Moderate | unsuitable | Codominant stem failure, basal decay, leaning to the north | The project arborist to supervise all excavation required within the critical root zone. | Retain |
| 2230 | City | Yes | Big leaf maple | Acer macrophyllum | 34 | 4 | 4.1 | Fair | Fair to poor | Moderate | Rooted against rock out cropping, covered in ivy | The project arborist to supervise all excavation required within the critical root zone. | Retain | |
| 2231 | City | Yes | Big leaf maple | Acer macrophyllum | 51* | 4 | 6.1 | Fair | Poor | Moderate | Deflection in lower stem, rooted against rock, covered in ivy, asymmetrical crown, wounds with associated decay | The project arborist to supervise all excavation required within the critical root zone. | Retain | |
| 2232 | City | Yes | Bitter cherry | Prunus emarginata | 18, 21, 10 | N/A | 4.5 | Dead | Dead | N/A | Appears dead, standing deadwood, cluster of stems | The project arborist to supervise all excavation required within the critical root zone. | Retain | |
| 2233 | City | Yes | Big leaf maple | Acer macrophyllum | 31, 9, 24, 5, 12 | 3 | 6.3 | Poor | Fair to poor | Moderate | Cluster of stems, declining health, deflections lower trunk, hanging deadwood | The project arborist to supervise all excavation required within the critical root zone. | Retain | |
| 2234 | City | Yes | Big leaf maple | Acer macrophyllum | 13, 25, 49 | 5 | 8.6 | Fair | Fair to poor | Moderate | Rooted on top of rock out cropping, included bark at lower union, ivy around trunk, small to medium sized deadwood | The project arborist to supervise all excavation required within the critical root zone. | Retain | |
| Hedge1 | City | No | Leyland cypress hedge | Cupressus x leylandii | 25 stems, 9cm to 24cm | 2mx15m | 2 | Fair to poor | Fair | Good | Health stress, row of stems | The project arborist to supervise all excavation required within the critical root zone. | Retain | |
| 2235 | City | Yes | Big leaf maple | Acer macrophyllum | 25, 41, 54, 55, 38, 40, 22, 22, 52, 45* | 12 | 14 | Fair | Fair to poor | Moderate | Cluster of stems, small to large sized deadwood, included bark at basal unions, some health stress | The project arborist to supervise all excavation required within the critical root zone. | Retain | |
| 2236 | On | Yes | Garry oak | Quercus garryana | 26, 24, 26, 19* | 4 | 5.6 | Fair | Fair | Good | suitable | Cluster of stems, ivy around lower trunk, somewhat narrow crown on each stem | The project arborist to supervise all excavation required within the critical root zone. | Retain |
| 2237 | On | Yes | Big leaf maple | Acer macrophyllum | 48, 44 | 8 | 8.9 | Fair | Fair to poor | Moderate | Conditional | Seam on western stem, small to medium sized deadwood, included bark at lower union | Located within the footprint of the proposed u/g parking structure. | Remove |
| 2238 | On | Yes | Big leaf maple | Acer macrophyllum | 58, 38 | 7 | 9.7 | Fair | Fair to poor | Moderate | Conditional | Historically stem loss with fungal growth, medium to large sized deadwood, rooted on slope, asymmetrical crown | Will be heavily impacted by excavation required to construct the proposed u/g parkade. | Remove |
| 2239 | On | Yes | Douglas fir | Pseudotsuga menziesii | 57 | 5 | 6.8 | Fair | Fair | Moderate | Conditional | Trunk deflection at 10m, some health stress, asymmetrical crown, small deadwood | Will be heavily impacted by excavation required to construct the proposed u/g parkade. | Remove |
| 2240 | On | Yes | Douglas fir | Pseudotsuga menziesii | 59 | 9 | 7.1 | Fair | Fair | Moderate | Conditional | Epicormic growth, trunk deflection at 10m, codominant with adjacent Douglas firs | Located within the footprint of the proposed u/g parking structure. | Remove |
| 2241 | On | Yes | Douglas fir | Pseudotsuga menziesii | 69 | 9 | 8.3 | Fair | Fair | Moderate | Conditional | Epicormic growth, trunk deflection at 10m, codominant with adjacent Douglas firs, ps fruiting body located 2m from root flare | Located within the footprint of the proposed u/g parking structure. | Remove |
| 2242 | On | Yes | Douglas fir | Pseudotsuga menziesii | 64 | 9 | 7.7 | Fair | Fair to poor | Moderate | Conditional | Epicormic growth, trunk deflection at 10m, codominant with adjacent Douglas firs, ps fruiting body located 2m from root flare, girdle root, possible surface rooting | Will be heavily impacted by excavation required to construct the proposed u/g parkade. | Remove |
| 2243 | On | Yes | Douglas fir | Pseudotsuga menziesii | 66 | 9 | 7.9 | Fair | Fair to poor | Moderate | Conditional | Epicormic growth, trunk deflection at 10m, codominant with adjacent Douglas, ps fruiting body at base, possible surface rooting | Will be heavily impacted by excavation required to construct the proposed interior access road. | Remove |
| 2244 | On | Yes | Douglas fir | Pseudotsuga menziesii | 47 | 9 | 5.6 | Fair to poor | Fair to poor | Moderate | Conditional | Health decline, epicormic growth, trunk deflection at 10m, leader in decline, codominant with adjacent Douglas | Will be heavily impacted by excavation required to construct the proposed interior access road. | Remove |
| 2245 | On | Yes | Western Red Cedar | Thuja plicata | 34, 17, 40, 16, 12, 14, 19 | 4 | 8.6 | Fair | Fair | Moderate | Conditional | Historically stem removal, bark stripping on northern most stem, lean to the north | Will be heavily impacted by excavation required to construct the proposed u/g parkade. | Remove |
| 2246 | On | Yes | Shore pine | Pinus contorta | 41, 63, 46 | 7 | 13.8 | Fair to poor | Fair | Moderate | Conditional | Possible pitch moth infestation, included bark at basal unions, historical heading cuts on western side of canopy, some health decline | Will be heavily impacted by excavation required to construct the proposed u/g parkade. | Remove |
| 2247 | On | Yes | Plum | Prunus sp. | 37, 26, 36 | 5 | 8.9 | Fair | Fair | Moderate | Conditional | Included bark at basal union, small deadwood, historically pruned, some wounding on upper canopy stems | Will be heavily impacted by excavation required to construct the proposed u/g parkade. | Remove |
| 2248 | On | Yes | Plum | Prunus sp. | 20, 4x14cm, 5x10cm | 4 | 3.8 | Fair | Fair | Moderate | Unsuitable | Cluster of stems, included bark at basal unions | Will be heavily impacted by excavation required to construct the foundation of the proposed u/g parkade. | Remove |
| 2249 | On | Yes | Plum | Prunus sp. | 2x11cm, 3x8cm, 11x5cm | 3 | 2.9 | Fair | Fair | Moderate | Unsuitable | Cluster of stems, included bark at basal unions | Located within the footprint of the proposed u/g parkade. | Remove |
| 2250 | On | Yes | Red Alder | Alnus rubra | 52 | 6 | 7.8 | Poor | Poor | Poor | Unsuitable | Advanced health decline, dead leader, very limited live crown, larger deadwood | Will be heavily impacted by excavation required to construct the proposed u/g parkade. | Remove |
| 2251 | On | Yes | Big leaf maple | Acer macrophyllum | 49, 25 | 10 | 7.7 | Fair | Fair | Moderate | Conditional | Lean to the north, small to medium asymmetrical crown, suppressed by adjacent Douglas fir | *u/g parkade and building proposed within the critical root zone. The project arborist to supervise all excavation required within the critical root zone. | Retain* |
| 2252 | On | Yes | Douglas fir | Pseudotsuga menziesii | 80, 93 | 7 | 16.9 | Fair to good | Fair | Moderate | Suitable | Epicormic growth, two large Douglas fir, codominant with adjacent arbutus, limbs are somewhat extended and end weighted | *u/g parkade and building proposed within the critical root zone. The project arborist to supervise all excavation required within the critical root zone. | Retain* |
| 2253 | On | Yes | Arbutus | Arbutus menziesii | 77 | 12 | 11.6 | Fair to good | Fair to good | Poor | Suitable | Lean to the west, codominant with adjacent Douglas firs, small deadwood, old tag 209 | *u/g parkade and building proposed within the critical root zone. The project arborist to supervise all excavation required within the critical root zone. | Retain* |
| 2254 | On | Yes | Big leaf maple | Acer macrophyllum | 19 | 5 | 2 | Fair | Fair to poor | Moderate | Conditional | Lean to the west, rooted in rock, small deadwood | The project arborist to supervise all excavation required within the critical root zone. | Retain |
| 2255 | On | Yes | Big leaf maple | Acer macrophyllum | 11 | 3 | 1.3 | Fair | Fair | Moderate | Conditional | Lean to the south, rooted in rock, ivy around lower trunk | The project arborist to supervise all excavation required within the critical root zone. | Retain |
| 2256 | On | Yes | Garry oak | Quercus garryana | 21 | 6 | 2.1 | Fair to poor | Fair | Good | Suitable | Rooted on rock out crop, lean to the west, heavy ivy infestation, narrow crown, old tag 12210 | The project arborist to supervise all excavation required within the critical root zone. | Retain |
| 2257 | On | Yes | Big leaf maple | Acer macrophyllum | 39, 31* | 7 | 6.9 | Fair | Fair to poor | Moderate | Conditional | Medium to large deadwood, included bark at basal union, asymmetrical crown | The project arborist to supervise all excavation required within the critical root zone. | Retain |
| 2258 | On | Yes | Big leaf maple | Acer macrophyllum | 34, 39, 44* | 6 | 10.5 | Fair | Fair to poor | Moderate | Conditional | Medium sized deadwood, included bark at basal union, asymmetrical crown | The project arborist to supervise all excavation required within the critical root zone. | Retain |
| 2259 | On | Yes | Big leaf maple | Acer macrophyllum | 35 | 5 | 4.2 | Fair | Fair | Moderate | Conditional | Small deadwood, lean to the south, ivy around lower trunk, | The project arborist to supervise all excavation required within the critical root zone. | Retain |
| 2260 | On | Yes | Grand fir | Quercus garryana | 89 | 7 | 13.4 | Fair | Fair | Poor | Conditional | Some health stress, hollow sounding lower trunk, small wound above root flare, codom with Douglas fir | Will be heavily impacted by excavation required to construct the foundation of the proposed building. | Remove |
| 2261 | On | Yes | Douglas fir | Pseudotsuga menziesii | 88 | 8 | 10.6 | Fair | Fair | Moderate | Conditional | Somewhat extended limbs, chain link wrapped around lower trunk with some girdle action, codom with grand fir, small deadwood | Will be heavily impacted by excavation required to construct the foundation of the proposed building. | Remove |
| 2262 | On | Yes | Willow | Salix sp. | 30, 31 | 8 | 5.9 | Fair to poor | Poor | Moderate | Unsuitable | Ganoderma applanatum fruiting bodies on lower trunk, partially failed, corrected stems, deadwood, wound/split in upper canopy with associated decay | The project arborist to supervise all excavation required within the critical root zone. | Retain |
| 2263 | On | Yes | Douglas fir | Pseudotsuga menziesii | 81 | 9 | 9.7 | Fair | Fair | Moderate | Conditional | Open grown, health stress, surface root damage, heavily surface rooted, small deadwood | Located within the footprint of the proposed u/g parkade. | Remove |
| 2264 | On | Yes | Blue spruce | Picea pungens | 43 | 3 | 5.2 | Poor | Poor | Moderate | Unsuitable | In advanced stages of health decline due to recent fire scorching. | Will be heavily impacted by excavation required to construct the foundation of the proposed u/g parkade. | Remove |
| 2265 | On | Yes | Big leaf maple | Acer macrophyllum | 35, 10, 16, 41, 14, 19, 23 | 6 | 7.2 | Fair | Fair | Moderate | Conditional | Cluster of stems, included bark at basal union, asymmetrical crown weighted to the west | Will be heavily impacted by excavation required to construct the foundation of the proposed u/g parkade. | Remove |
| 2266 | On | Yes | Douglas fir | Pseudotsuga menziesii | 58 | 4 | 7.0 | Fair | Fair to good | Moderate | Conditional | Some health stress, slight deflection in lower trunk | Located within the footprint of the proposed u/g parkade. | Remove |
| 2267 | On | Yes | Grand fir | Abies grandis | 60* | 5 | 9 | Fair to poor | Fair | Poor | Unsuitable | Health stress, ivy around lower trunk, small deadwood | Will be heavily impacted by excavation required to construct the foundation of the proposed u/g parkade. | Remove |
| 2268 | On | Yes | Douglas fir | Pseudotsuga menziesii | 24 | 3 | 2.9 | Fair to poor | Fair | Moderate | Unsuitable | Health stress, girdle root, epicormic growth | Will be heavily impacted by excavation required to construct the foundation of the proposed u/g parkade. | Remove |
| 2269 | On | Yes | Douglas fir | Pseudotsuga menziesii | 28 | 3 | 3.4 | Poor | Fair | Moderate | Unsuitable | Health stress, small deadwood, low lcr, ivy around trunk | Will be heavily impacted by excavation required to construct the foundation of the proposed u/g parkade. | Remove |
| 2270 | On | Yes | Douglas fir | Pseudotsuga menziesii | 15 | 3 | 1.8 | Fair | Fair to good | Moderate | Unsuitable | Some health stress, ivy around lower trunk | Will be heavily impacted by excavation required to construct the foundation of the proposed u/g parkade. | Remove |
| 2271 | On | Yes | Douglas fir | Pseudotsuga menziesii | 18 | 3 | 2.2 | Fair | Fair | Moderate | Conditional | Asymmetrical crown weighted to the north, corrected lean to the north | Located within the footprint of the proposed u/g parkade. | Remove |
| 2272 | On | Yes | Douglas fir | Pseudotsuga menziesii | 22 | 2 | 2.6 | Fair to poor | Fair to poor | Moderate | Unsuitable | Corrected lean to the east, low lcr, health stress, high narrow crown | Located within the footprint of the proposed u/g parkade. | Remove |
| 2273 | On | Yes | Lawson cypress | Chamaecyparis lawsoniana | 15, 18, 19, 27 | 3 | 4.9 | Poor | Fair to poor | Good | Unsuitable | Advanced health stress, included bark at basal union, very sparse canopy, low lcr | Located within the footprint of the proposed u/g parkade. | Remove |
Page 154–178
Related Documents
(1)Extracted from: 2023 11 07 Council Agenda - Agenda - Pdf