Private Tree Protection By-law Update – Key Issues and Options report, dated March 5, 2024, be received…

59:24Where's my, oh sorry, where's my clicker? It's been a while since I've been here.

59:28Oh, oh, this is new. Sorry. How do I, this is new.

59:39Oh, sorry about that. This is brand new to me. All good. Okay. So

59:46the presentation today is going to be about why we're here today.

59:51The alignment of the private tree bylaw with the strategic plan,

59:56the progress and overview of the project, the key findings of the background review,

1:00:01the data analysis and community engagement, the four recommended update options for the

1:00:07private tree bylaw, the estimated potential costs and resourcing required for each option.

1:00:13And next steps to get us to a final private tree bylaw. So today specifically,

1:00:21we're here to seek support to proceed with the recommendations in the key issues and options

1:00:27report, including the four recommended options for updating the private tree bylaw, which would

1:00:34be part of the second phase of the community engagement. With regards to the city strategic

1:00:44plan, Guelph aims to be a leader in climate action. An updated private tree protection bylaw

1:00:51will help to increase the canopy cover and mitigate the impacts of climate change

1:00:55through effective regulation of the destruction and injuring of trees.

1:01:00And the effective regulation is supported by the update of the private tree bylaw.

1:01:09So we're about halfway through the update of the bylaw. We've completed the background

1:01:14research, the data analysis, the first phase of community engagement, and we're here to present

1:01:20the key issues and options report. And we're heading into the second phase of community

1:01:27engagement where we'll be looking for feedback and input on the update options.

1:01:39So the key findings of the background review of the the background review, the tree canopy data,

1:01:45and the community engagement are that Guelph's tree canopy cover provides valuable services.

1:01:51That's not new to all of us. Oops. Oops, there we go. Guelph's private tree bylaw is an important

1:01:58tool for protecting and maintaining the tree canopy cover. There are some overarching best

1:02:04practices for private tree bylaws. The current private tree bylaw is not fully resourced.

1:02:12Most of Guelph's trees are relatively small or young. It's almost 80 percent,

1:02:17or less than 20 centimeters in diameter. More than two-thirds of Guelph's canopy is on private

1:02:24land. Half of the canopy in Guelph is currently is regulated by the current private tree bylaw.

1:02:32And but expanding the scope of the private tree bylaw would potentially regulate up to 69 percent

1:02:38of the tree canopy cover. With regards to engagement with the community, there's broad support

1:02:46for the efforts to protect and preserve trees, but with differing perspectives on the approach to

1:02:52that. And lastly, there there was a lack of knowledge in the community about the private tree

1:02:58bylaw itself. So once we had the key findings, we developed a list of six screening criteria that

1:03:09we felt were transparent and demonstrated a balanced approach to evaluating different alternatives.

1:03:16And so we used these criteria to score a list of alternatives for the scope of the updated

1:03:23private tree bylaw. The six screening criteria that we ended up with was the proportion of trees

1:03:29regulated, the proportion of tree canopy cover regulated, the level of protection compared

1:03:36to the current private tree bylaw because we didn't want to end up with something that was less

1:03:41effective at regulating the canopy. Alignment with community perspectives, of course, the level of

1:03:48complexity. So we want something that's going to be easy to communicate, implement, and to understand.

1:03:54And lastly, the impact on city resources. So based on the scoring of the alternatives,

1:04:04three came out on top, and the fourth was considered as a combination of alternatives

1:04:10that were scored. So the first option being the current private tree bylaw that we're all familiar

1:04:17with, but improved with additional resourcing and some other pieces to it. Option two being similar

1:04:28in terms of the tree size, where it would still be the current tree size of 10 centimeters in

1:04:34diameter, but on lots greater than 0.1 hectares rather than 0.2 hectares of the current bylaw.

1:04:42Option three is trees at least 20 centimeters in diameter on all private lots. So the regulation

1:04:50of trees is larger, it's currently regulated in 20 centimeters again, rather than 10. And again,

1:04:56the scope would be expanded to all private lots across the city. Then option four is a combination

1:05:04of the current scope, which is the 10 centimeters on 0.2 hectares, but with the addition of trees

1:05:10at least 50 centimeters in diameter on all private lots. So when we compare the options,

1:05:23the four options we want to take forward, option one captures 4% of private lots in the city and

1:05:3050% of the overall tree canopy cover. Option two captures double the number of lots of private lots,

1:05:39but only an additional 5% of city-wide canopy cover. Option three captures all of the private

1:05:47lots, as I said earlier, and 69% of the city's tree canopy. So that's all the tree, that's all

1:05:54the canopy on private land. And again, option four will capture all the private lots and up to 69%

1:06:02or again, all the tree canopy on private land. Okay, so some additional recommendations that

1:06:12we're seeking input on in the second phase of engagement are the regulation of replacement

1:06:18trees. So trees that would be required as replacement, again, additional regulation on

1:06:25those, regardless of size potentially. The second being options for updating the approach to tree

1:06:32compensation. So looking at aligning it with the tree technical manual that was approved in 2019.

1:06:40And the third being options for offsetting the potential tree compensation cost for residents

1:06:47so that we're looking at some equity, building some equity into the bylaw as well.

1:06:58So going back to the four options and just the general update, the recommendations in general,

1:07:04there are no financial implications today of this report specifically, but we've brought some context

1:07:11forward as to the implications of supporting the bylaw update options. So we've laid out at a high

1:07:21level, estimated funding for all four options where option one and two you can see would not

1:07:27require additional funding. So that means we have the capacity to implement those two options.

1:07:33Option three would require an estimated 235,000 in addition to current funding.

1:07:41And option four would require an estimated 113,000 in additional funding.

1:07:50And just to note, when we talk about finance and budgets, the financial impact of the chosen

1:07:56update option will be refined when we come back to council, when we seek approval for the updated

1:08:03bylaw, so it'll be much more specific. And as always, it's understood that any financial implications

1:08:10is a high level estimate that'll be refined and incorporated into corporate plans and

1:08:15multi-year, the multi-year budget process. And finally, next steps, it's exciting, we're getting

1:08:26close, is starting the second phase of the community engagement. Again, these recommendations

1:08:33will take us forward to that and we're looking to start that April 30th. Then preparing the

1:08:41second phase engagement summary. Following that, we'd confirm the scope that's been chosen for

1:08:48the updated private tree bylaw. We would then draft the bylaw, have internal review and finalize that

1:08:55and lastly bring a final updated bylaw back to council with a target of March of 2025.

1:09:06Thank you for your consideration. Okay, thank you. So before we go to questions, I think we're here

1:09:16from the delegation first, Morgan Dandy. And you know the drill. So you have five minutes and there'll

1:09:36be a warning 30 seconds before I'm short. Good afternoon, Mayor, Council, staff and neighbors.

1:09:52I hope you were all as excited as I was when I saw the private tree protection bylaw review. Has

1:09:58staff recommending, Council, except receipt of the key issues and options report before you today.

1:10:05Almost a week ago, my excitement was lessened. As I read of the mayor using strong mayor powers

1:10:11to issue three directives, including to establish a 2025 confirmation budget with a property tax

1:10:18increase under 4%. I thought, well, there goes options three and four. Not much point in delegating

1:10:25to this now. You know, it won't make a confirmation budget cut that low. So why bother? And then

1:10:33yesterday, I read an article about the mayor's presentation on the cycling in Copenhagen at

1:10:39the GCAT AGM last month. And I had the encouraging thought, well, maybe the tree canopy is part of

1:10:45why cycling in Copenhagen is so great. And the mayor will use the powers to protect more trees.

1:10:53That prompted me to do a search to find out the area population density and percentage of urban

1:10:59tree canopy for both Copenhagen and Guelph. So while the areas are similar, Copenhagen is about

1:11:0690 square kilometers, Guelph's about 87 square kilometers. Copenhagen is greater than four

1:11:13times more densely populated. And Guelph actually has nearly 7% more urban tree canopy.

1:11:21The use of strong mayor powers in a private tree protection bylaw seems unlikely to me now.

1:11:27From my initial review, option two seemed like a fairly well balanced choice until I calculated

1:11:33the lot size of the home that I used to own near Victoria and Aramasa. It's only .08 hectares.

1:11:41If option two's chosen, the old oak in the backyard wouldn't be protected if the owner

1:11:45decides to add an accessory unit. The diameter of this majestic old oak is definitely in excess of

1:11:5350 centimeters. A closer review of option four led me to remember a 2019 infraction by Mademy,

1:12:03where they clear cut a property that they had recently acquired, as well as a resident in

1:12:08Rolling Hills deciding to clear cut potentially over 200 trees for a better view of Hall's pond.

1:12:16Which brings me to the main point of my delegation. Regardless of what option is finally chosen,

1:12:23the private tree protection bylaw review must include actual ways to enforce it

1:12:30in a publicly transparent way. Public records show the judge in the Mademy trial telling an

1:12:38interested citizen that they were not permitted in the courtroom for discussion between the attorney

1:12:43for the perpetrator and the crown. When the reported the negotiated settlement above a

1:12:48paltry $25,000 fine was published, I found some solace in the fact that there were a reported

1:12:552,170 new trees in compensation. I calculated that if Mademy had paid $500 per tree for the

1:13:03estimated 542 trees removed, the bill would have been $271,000. I find it interesting that the fine

1:13:15for one of the largest developers in Canada breaking our private tree protection bylaw is

1:13:20less than 10% of this. And this is only one instance with one developer that was actually

1:13:26publicized. It doesn't account for developers who have had similar negotiations that were kept even

1:13:31more quiet. I believe staff have done all they can regarding the Rolling Hills infraction.

1:13:37Notices of violation, fines, and a directive to rehabilitate the lot have all been ignored.

1:13:44This is an excruciatingly clear example of the bylaw having no teeth. If a resident chooses

1:13:50to ignore bylaw infraction notices, what recourse does the city actually have?

1:13:56Overall, I believe the city is on a fair path to meet the inadequate goal of 40% urban tree canopy

1:14:02by 2070. And of all the options in the report, I believe option three is the only one that will

1:14:07be able to maintain the required trajectory to achieve the mediocre 2070 goal, especially as

1:14:15lot sizes will continue to be reduced as density necessarily increases. In closing, I wonder if

1:14:22this bylaw review is an opportunity for City Council to express their endorsement of the

1:14:27efforts toward an urban national parking lot. Regardless, I look forward to the continuation

1:14:32of the consultation process, especially with Indigenous treaty partners. And I trust Council

1:14:38will keep true enforcement and actual transparency of process front of mind when the bylaw comes

1:14:44back for approval next year. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions for Ms. Dandy?

1:14:55Okay, seeing none, thank you. So we're going to go to questions of staff. And I just, I do want to

1:15:00remind Council that today we're not picking an option. We are, we are recommending four options

1:15:08to go out to the public, along with three other recommendations for feedback as well. So I saw

1:15:16Councillor Gibson first, Councillor Allt, Mayor Guthrie and Councillor Piper.

1:15:22Thank you, Chair Downer. Question to staff. I deal with species that risk legislation a fair bit,

1:15:27federally and provincially. I understand a fish is not always a fish. Sometimes it's an invasive

1:15:31fish. Sometimes it's a fish that we don't want to manage for. So I'm just a simple question. What is

1:15:37a tree? What is a tree in this instance? Is it, is it an ornamental tree? Is it an invasive tree?

1:15:43Is it all trees? Is it anything with foliage? Help me understand that.

1:15:48Through you, Councillor Downer. There is a definition of tree in the bylaw. It's,

1:15:53right. So, and it's a very simple, it's for anything that can reach 4.5 meters in maturity.

1:15:58It's a very basic definition. Easy to understand. When we talk about, you can split it up. I mean,

1:16:08there are invasives and we'll have exemptions as we do. Currently, we have exemptions for some

1:16:13species like buckthorn or mulberry. So we'll be addressing that. So a tree is not a tree. There,

1:16:20there are many, there are going to be many different, there are going to be differentiations

1:16:24and there will be exemptions for, we'll consider those types of issues. Okay. Thank you. I guess

1:16:32that's great. Just for clarification, then, if a landowner was looking at their property

1:16:37and was looking to remove some trees, I'm assuming staff would provide some support in determining,

1:16:42you know, these are the compensatable trees. These are the ones you're going to be having to

1:16:45compensate for. These are the ones we're not as concerned about. That's the type of support the

1:16:49city would still give under this bylaw. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you for those clarifications.

1:16:56Councillor Gibson, good question. Councillor Allt. Thank you. I don't think I heard it,

1:17:02but I was just happy to put the motion on the floor and the questions were the same as

1:17:07Councillor Gibson. So thank you, Councillor Gibson. I'm seconded by Councillor Goller.

1:17:12Okay. So you don't have another question. Okay. Mayor Guthrie?

1:17:19Thank you. And through you, Chair, just a few quick ones as a takeaway. So my main focus on this,

1:17:27other than wanting to actually try to protect the trees, so I'm with you on that, but is development

1:17:32and how onerous it's going to be. And I've been reading and reading and reading and

1:17:35it's identified, again, the report that there was some concern about that. So I need to understand

1:17:42where staff would be going in regards to the interference of potential development

1:17:47and specifically, obviously, we're going to have a lot more infill in our communities,

1:17:52including, you know, three units as of right, four units as of right, maybe four, maybe more than four.

1:17:57And so you're going to have like regular folk wanting to put a tiny home in their backyard.

1:18:03What type of onerous processes and or financial implications would become a hurdle for that?

1:18:14Through you, Chair Downer. So we are going to be looking at the equity issues. And we do recognize

1:18:23that there are residents, there are developers, and so there's a lot of different users of the

1:18:28bylaw, I'll call it. And so we definitely have to look at that and consider how, you know, anybody

1:18:35could, you know, that it could be affordable and reasonable for a resident to go through the process

1:18:39without it being too onerous. And more in regards not to the permit fee, but with regards to

1:18:46compensation, whereas the developer, it's on a very different scale. So we're going to be looking at

1:18:50that. We're going to be looking at the scale of the removals or the impacts or whatever it might be

1:18:57of a permit and consider and consider that when we're looking at things like the permit fee or

1:19:03compensation requirements. And just to add that there are differences between the development

1:19:12process and the bylaw itself. So whereas the bylaw itself regulates trees outside of the

1:19:19planning process. So while the planning process will follow the same rules, they'll generally

1:19:25use the same compensation that we have laid out currently in the Tree Technical Manual. That's

1:19:30what's been implemented since that was approved. But we're going to be looking at how the actual,

1:19:37the regulation of trees under the bylaw, so not under the planning act through development,

1:19:42how that's going to be equitable for the community in general.

1:19:49Okay, that's great. So I look forward to seeing that. Thank you for using that lens on that. I

1:19:54think that's really great. Thank you. So I look forward to seeing that. And then the other question

1:19:59I had through Madam Chair is just around the costs as the different options are put out.

1:20:06And I guess I just wondered, are you looking at this through a lens of being no impact to taxpayers

1:20:11at all, but instead shifted to a completely fee based program of revenue so that there is no tax

1:20:20base required to actually fund any of the additional added costs? Through the Chair

1:20:30to Council, as to me I mentioned in her presentation, that's the kind of detail that will get in for

1:20:34Council as we present the recommended option of the four. We'll definitely take that lens away

1:20:42for consideration. But again, we'll get into that detail in that 2025 horizon. That's great.

1:20:48I would, you know, my preference is that at least that is tabled for us to consider as a Council

1:20:54to see if there's no impact to the tax base. But this is more user fee driven because someone

1:20:59would want to do something so we can capture that revenue from there. Now I looked at some of the

1:21:05other cities that we're compared to and I just wondered, maybe we already have this and I just

1:21:11don't know or maybe you're thinking about it. But I see some where there's a required, there's a

1:21:16permit like fee upfront just for someone as Councillor Gibson was asking to go and actually

1:21:24take a look, sorry, take a look, give suggestions, that sort of fee for service. Do we do that already

1:21:33and can you explain how that works? Through you Chair. Yes, there is currently a permit fee of $122.

1:21:44That's been in place for since the 2010 update. Sorry, and that's only if a permit is required.

1:21:55So it doesn't apply if there's an exemption perhaps. So again, only when the bylaw applies and you

1:22:00need a permit does the permit fee apply. So that hasn't changed in 10 years. We are going to be

1:22:06looking at the permit fee. So again, sort of tying into what Jean talked about, you know, can it be

1:22:11self-sustaining is the fee equitable? There's a balance we're going to look at. So when we look

1:22:17at the equity lens is the fee too, you know, too much for a resident versus balancing out the finance,

1:22:25the budget side of it. So through the Chair to Council to add to that, we want to make sure

1:22:29of what our role is in the process too, right? So if our role is to regulate and engage the permit

1:22:35process, that's what we should do. If it's to advise on other things that may feed into that

1:22:39permit process, that may be not our role to take. We want to be cautious of that. But again,

1:22:44we'll take that away too, Mary. Okay, thank you. So just for clarity, if you don't mind,

1:22:50I just wanted to ask then, is there a fee for someone to come out and take a look and then if a

1:22:55permit was not required, then there's no fee for that person to come out and take a look? Or only

1:23:01a fee is required once an actual permit is determined to be required? Yes, through you,

1:23:06Chair. Only when a permit is required. Okay. So I'm just going to say it out loud. I think we

1:23:12should try that again, looking when you come back. I think there's a fee for service here,

1:23:18whether or not it results in a permit or not. Again, to get some revenue through a fee for

1:23:24service on that, I think there's some value in that. That's my position on that. Okay. And then

1:23:29the last one was, I saw that I think in the chart somewhere in the report said that only one

1:23:36permit was denied. Can you give a reason as to why it was denied and is there an appeal process

1:23:44that would still be used, which we've had come before, Council, before, but are you looking to

1:23:50change anything to do with the appeal process in the new private tree by law? Okay, through the

1:23:58Chair to Mayor Guthrie, the one refusal was the one that came to Council. So there I think were

1:24:05three trees that were debated. They came back and it was refused again. So that's the one. Yeah.

1:24:16And then the second part of your question, sorry, can you remind me? Just we have an appeal process

1:24:21right now. Yes. And I would, I'm assuming, I mean, maybe it works fine, which it does, I think it

1:24:25does. But I'm just wondering, is staff looking at anything to do with revisions, updating, changing,

1:24:31editing the appeal process within this new complete bylaw that we're looking at? Or is it

1:24:37going to basically be copied and pasted into, into this new bylaw? Through the Chair to

1:24:45through the Chair to Mayor Guthrie. We didn't have that on our list for kind of housekeeping

1:24:52amendments to the tree bylaw. But if that's something you want us to look into, we certainly

1:24:58could. But I would anticipate or we had anticipated that that would carry over from the current bylaw.

1:25:05Yeah, that's fine. No, no, no direction on that. I just wondered if it was part of your, your lens

1:25:10that you were looking at. So yeah, it seems to work when it, you know, comes before and we get to

1:25:16that's fine. Okay. That's all I have. May I just end with a comment and then you can move on or do

1:25:22want to come in? I just wanted questions. Yeah, okay. I'll just understand. Thank you. Councillor

1:25:27Koran. Yes, thank you through you, Madam Chair. In the financial implications, I mean, I just as a

1:25:34preamble, I share the delegates enthusiasm was really excited, leaning towards option three.

1:25:38I think it's the only way we're going to get to our 20 70 goals, maximize the urban forest canopy

1:25:44and retaining what we have. But in the financial piece, you note in the report that the potential

1:25:53costs and the implications of those costs that will come forward at a later date are related to

1:26:00resourcing the updated bylaw and then you list administrative costs permitting fees,

1:26:05all the things that Mayor Guthrie just just referred to. But I recall in previous discussions

1:26:10about our stormwater plan and the value of an urban tree in stormwater and climate

1:26:17chain resilience that a tree had a value in mitigating costs, mitigating damage,

1:26:25mitigating the need for higher order engineering of our stormwater systems. Will those value added

1:26:34tree benefits be part of the formula that we're going to use to create the financial implications

1:26:41report that will come to council? Because I do think we're talking about just administrative costs,

1:26:46but we're also saving in other costs, other city building costs, other engineering costs, other

1:26:53infrastructure costs. And I want to make sure that that's all captured in the formula that we're using

1:26:57when we talk about the financial implications. Through you, Chair. And sorry, just for clarification,

1:27:06do you mean financial implications in terms of if the tree has a specific value? And I know what

1:27:13you're talking about. There's some sort of chatter about using environmental services and values as

1:27:20valuation of a tree. Are you talking about use of it as compensation or is that where you're going?

1:27:26A little bit of both. I just want to make sure that when financial implications come back as

1:27:30part of the confirmation budget, that that value is included in the calculations. So say if we

1:27:35say it's going to cost a million dollars to resource the program, but we benefit two million

1:27:41dollars worth of tree retention infrastructure value, that it's actually a net benefit to the

1:27:47city to retain trees. Yes. So yes, we can consider that definitely. We've done the through the urban

1:27:54forest study. We have the evaluation, the valuation of the canopy done, and we can pull from that and

1:28:00make some inferences. Okay. So for example, the maximum retention in the options that are before

1:28:08us today are in option three that but it's also the highest cost in the financial implication

1:28:14column. And I wonder if there to me there's value in adding another column that says benefit so that

1:28:21we can net out what the true cost is before we make decisions based on the cost of a program. We

1:28:28also need to know the benefit of the program. So that would be really helpful moving forward. We

1:28:32can do that. Thank you. Thank you. I think those costs were in the tree study report that we have.

1:28:38The one canopy report. Yeah. Okay. Councillor work. Thank you, Chair Downer. I've got a couple of

1:28:45questions for staff. So through you or staff, I just want to confirm for people who are interested

1:28:50that while it says recommended options, you're not recommending an option today. You're saying

1:28:57these are four things. We're going to go back to the community and then they can have their say on

1:29:01those. That's correct. Yes, through you, Chair. Yes, that is correct. There was a longer list of

1:29:08alternatives that you saw in the report and through the screening and the scoring process against the

1:29:13six criteria, those were the ones that ranked the highest again. They protected they either protected

1:29:18the most canopy or they were the least complex again. So that's where we chose those as the most

1:29:27feasible and reasonable to bring forward. Okay. Through you, Chair Downer, is it possible that

1:29:35this will generate more conversation? Is it possible you come back with a bit of a hybrid

1:29:38model or different considerations in the policy? Through you, Chair. Yes, I'm actually hoping

1:29:44for that. I'm hoping that through the second phase of engagement that there will be dialogue and

1:29:47conversation about these. And again, all we're here to do today is to get support to move for

1:29:55with those recommendations. And if it comes back that the community, so either through this or

1:30:01through the community, there's a driver passion for something else to come out of it, then we will

1:30:08be considering that because we're getting input and feedback and we can reformulate is what I'm

1:30:14saying. Okay, great. Thanks. Through you, Chair Downer, I just also want to confirm and it's been

1:30:19raised in some of the correspondence. This is totally separate than the city's tree planting

1:30:24efforts, correct? So the city's going to pursue its tree planting efforts on public land and

1:30:29encouraging like sort of private commercial to plant trees, but it's totally separate. So there's

1:30:34commentary in the correspondence around boulevards and that type of stuff. These will continue to

1:30:40happen regardless of what happens with the tree bylaw, right? Yeah, through you, Chair. Yes, that is

1:30:46correct. So we will move ahead with the tree planting strategy and all the efforts and initiatives

1:30:52associated with that. This, the tree bylaw is, you know, it's meant for to, it's meant to communicate

1:31:00and educate the community as well and also to protect and maintain the canopy. So while we have

1:31:06efforts to increase the canopy, we also need to have some efforts to maintain and to balance as well.

1:31:12But obviously through compensation, as a result of the bylaw, there will be additional trees planted

1:31:20that will contribute as well to the overall canopy. Okay, great. Thanks. Through you, Chair Downer,

1:31:25just a question about an issue that arose in, in Word 6. What happens with lots that are

1:31:33currently protected by the bylaw, but then are severed, right? So you have a lot that's, that's

1:31:40a half acre and all the trees are protected, but there's, there's a severance to build, you know,

1:31:46towns on one half or more units. So currently what happens to those trees and then under the new

1:31:53bylaw, what would happen to those trees? Because the neighborhood was quite concerned.

1:31:57Through you, Chair, if the lot that is severed is less than whatever area the updated bylaw would be,

1:32:07then a permit would not be required. The bylaw would not regulate the trees on that property,

1:32:12even if the original property was large enough to have trees to be regulated.

1:32:19Unless there is, sorry. Through the Chair to Councillor O'Rourke, just a couple points of

1:32:29clarification. There is a specific definition of lot in the tree bylaw. And if the, there are

1:32:36consecutive lots owned by the same property owner, then the tree bylaw applies to the assembled

1:32:44lot size. So say for example, a single parcel was subdivided and both parcels remained in the same

1:32:52ownership, then the tree bylaw would continue to apply. Further, at Committee of Adjustment,

1:32:59we do review files for consistency and consider the tree bylaw. So if the property was regulated,

1:33:08there could be some conditions applied through Committee of Adjustment to require tree replacements.

1:33:15Okay, thank you. That's really helpful. And then through you, Chair Downer,

1:33:21it's, it's really, I do try to stay at a governance level, but it's helpful for me to have like a

1:33:26tangible example. Okay. So today on my front lawn, I have three trees. Okay. But one is taking all

1:33:35the nutrients from the other two trees. And it's probably the biggest tree. So it's a bit of a,

1:33:40bit of a hog. So, so what will permit somebody to manage the trees on their own property?

1:33:51Under the new bylaw, right? Because every year my husband, I have this conversation where he

1:33:55wants to cut, you know, the, the big tree down. And it's a conifer. So like how, how does a resident,

1:34:06one, know that there is a private tree bylaw? Because just like the parking bylaw, they don't

1:34:11know. And then suddenly there's an infraction and right, it's just this Nazi surprise. So how are

1:34:16they supposed to know what the infraction is or what the rule is? And, and I would say most people

1:34:22feel if it's on their property, they can make those decisions. How do they even know what it is?

1:34:27And then does somebody help them make those decisions about, can you cut the tree down? Can

1:34:32you not cut it down? What will it cost? Can you just walk me through what it is now? And what we

1:34:36envision it to be in a future state? This is not an elegant question. I apologize.

1:34:42So through you, chair. No, I understand. And it's, it's definitely complicated. So,

1:34:47so currently, if you are interested in removing that one tree that you're referring to,

1:34:55you would have to take the initiative, obviously, and would have to somehow know. So most people would

1:35:02maybe look it up on the city's website. And if they happen to find it, they'll get the information

1:35:07there. Outside of that, there isn't currently the outreach and education that there would,

1:35:14we would like there to be. So looking forward to the updated bylaw, the outreach and education

1:35:23would be one of those pieces that would be added to the capacity that would that's,

1:35:30that's good. That was part of the consideration for the updated bylaw. So even option one,

1:35:35if we continue to implement the current bylaw, we'd like to add those other pieces to it. And

1:35:41that would look something like additional information on the website. Or if there's obviously an

1:35:46update to the bylaw, there would be a citywide outreach and communication about those changes,

1:35:53whether it's through social media, the website, direct mailing. So again, there, it's really

1:36:00important that we also do feel that it's very important that the information is there because

1:36:05it, it can be complex. And some of those, like the first two options are a little more complex

1:36:11because there are specific size properties. So there's work for somebody to do. Whereas option three,

1:36:18it's all property. So again, we're considering some of those complexities and how the outreach

1:36:23might look for those because with complications, complexities of the bylaw, it does make it more

1:36:28difficult to understand. So yeah, so I would say in a nutshell, we're, we're hoping to implement some

1:36:34education outreach as part of the update because we do recognize that there are some challenges with

1:36:40the current, the current administration or we don't have the opportunity to do that. Okay. Thanks very

1:36:46much. Okay. Thank you. Good questions. Councillor Goller. Thank you. I'm through you, Chair,

1:36:56Donner. Thank you for your work in this. I had two related questions that I did not see addressed in

1:37:03the reports. One was about soil volume and the other one was about food protection. The first one,

1:37:13one of the challenges that we're seeing is that when, when trees are planted with not enough space,

1:37:18they're, they're, they're doomed to fail. So we see many new subdivisions. They plant trees in the

1:37:23front and, and there is a very small corridor between a driveway and a walkway. And then there is,

1:37:30you know, a utility infrastructure running underneath. So I'm wondering, is, is that a

1:37:37consideration to give some guidance as to where and how trees should be planted so that we're not

1:37:42asking someone to replace trees? They replace them, but then they keep on dying and they're,

1:37:46they're not successful. Well, what do we have in place and, and related to that with, with root

1:37:52protection, one of my constituents has had a hundred plus year old tree on his property and they

1:38:00built the development right next to it that, that unfortunately went, went down and damaged the roots

1:38:08through that tree because we say if the trunk is on your property, you know, you have, that's,

1:38:14that's, that's one thing. But if the roots extend to the neighbor's property, there is, you know,

1:38:19that's, that's something else. So is there anything that is being considered here for either soil

1:38:24volume or protection for roots that may extend beyond one person's property? Through you, chair.

1:38:32So not, not directly in the sense of the, the technical information. Those are things that

1:38:40are in the tree technical manual. We've talked about that before. We've talked about the issue

1:38:46of space for trees through the tree planting strategy as well. But what the bylaw has, so even

1:38:51the current bylaw, if you remove, I think three or more trees, three or more trees, you require

1:38:58a planting plan to be submitted with your permit. So again, this is, we're not talking about subdivisions,

1:39:05we're talking, like development applications, we're talking about just a permit process

1:39:10for regulating trees. So again, if you're removing a certain number of trees, you do require a plan

1:39:14and through that process, we can apply some of those standards or give some guidance. Usually,

1:39:21usually if you're to the point where you're preparing a planting plan as part of a permit,

1:39:26you've probably hired an arborist or, or a professional to help you with that.

1:39:34And with regards to roots, protecting roots in particular, the conversation about the bylaw

1:39:41has been very much about tree protection in general in terms of like tree removal. But it's

1:39:48also important to know that the bylaw would also prevent injury to trees. And so that's where the

1:39:53conversation goes to being able to implement tree protection fencing and whatnot on properties

1:40:00with construction. So it does in a way address both issues, but more indirectly. So we're not going

1:40:07to prescribe those things in the bylaw, they will be referenced elsewhere and sort of brought into

1:40:14the conversation. So does that answer your question? It does to an extent and let me illustrate what

1:40:22happened in my property. We put in an additional dwelling unit. Unfortunately, we had to get new

1:40:27sewage lines going up to it and a very large tree had all its roots cut right next to it. The arborist

1:40:34gave us four to five years before it's down. We had a conversation with our neighbor. It's coming

1:40:39down. We're planning to replace the trees, but, but I just wanted to make sure that there would be a

1:40:44connection that when something like that happens and work is done that will, that will have a tree

1:40:50come down, but not immediately. So, so you will not see it, you know, it's covered. And four years later,

1:40:56a tree is dying. Will we be able to make that connection so that this tree protect this bylaw

1:41:04protects not only a tree being clear cut, but also being damaged to the point

1:41:08where replacement will be needed. So I'm just wondering about, you know, that, that, that, that

1:41:15time delay and whether that will be addressed through this. Through you, Chair. So yes, for your

1:41:22example specifically, and it applies in so many cases. If your property had trees that were large

1:41:29enough to be regulated, so let's, let's pretend it was, then technically you would need a permit

1:41:36to injure those trees. And through that process, we would work with you to have, to make sure that

1:41:41there's tree protection installed. And that would include protecting the root zones as well.

1:41:47Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much for this. I really appreciate all the work that you're

1:41:51doing. And I'm hearing from a lot of community members that are very excited to see this bylaw

1:41:55moving forward. Thank you. Councillor Chew.

1:42:01Thank you. Through you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to speak on Councillor Gauley's last point.

1:42:07Like the recommendations in front of us today were, it's very prescriptive in nature. And I

1:42:11understand that's the nature of how bylaws are crafted. But I think a lot of residents are worried

1:42:18because we're only evaluating regulation based off of a tree diameter. There's a big degree of

1:42:25subjectivity when it comes down to whether or not, you know, we're assessing, we're being legalistic

1:42:33in our prescription for replacement for someone that has a tree that's going to die soon to be frank.

1:42:40So I'm just trying to understand if there are way, what are some other ways in which we can

1:42:46provide some value add to this service, even though the nature of it is just a permitting process.

1:42:52Like I know there's a lot of work in intersections with the urban tree management plan and the

1:42:59strategy subsequent to that. But I was just wondering too, is there an education piece that's

1:43:07heavily emphasizing on the removal of invasive species? Because 19% of our tree canopy is invasive,

1:43:15is predominantly buckthorn. And we don't talk, have that, we don't necessarily have that conversation

1:43:22necessarily on the removal of invasive trees. And that is a very big part of the conversation too.

1:43:29So I just wonder if, like from the educational perspective and the consultation perspective,

1:43:34like how are we utilizing staff time to have those conversations?

1:43:40So through the chair to council, we'll bring in the customer service lens to this. So as a lot of

1:43:47us will know, we have an arborist team. We have experts like Tamia, Dave, who are here today and

1:43:52Leah. And again, those forestry workers in the background out there engaging the community,

1:43:57probably right now. And there's probably some level of education happening as to the type of

1:44:03work that's happening to a tree in the boulevard or a shared tree on their front yard. And our

1:44:10arborist team in the field will often use their certified educated expertise to comment on all the

1:44:18many factors that impact work that may happen to a tree. So we can continue to lean into that.

1:44:26And I'm confident that many of you will have constituents who've experienced that and really

1:44:30are positively impacted by that. And we'll continue to lean into that. As Tamia mentioned earlier,

1:44:37there is more that we want to do in terms of educating the work that our team does

1:44:41in-house to support our urban canopy. And as we progress with this bylaw, as Tamia mentions,

1:44:47the tree technical manual is related to that. We just don't need to educate on the bylaw. We

1:44:52need to educate on those other things too. And just a quick follow up. What do we do with invasive

1:45:03trees on private property? Are they assessed the same way with this permitting process?

1:45:08Or are there more considerations to kind of waive fees? For example, if we had a buckthorn

1:45:15and if we're just looking at the bylaw in itself, it warrants some kind of a fee to be provided.

1:45:26So what do we do in that case? Three, Chair. There are currently exemptions in the bylaw

1:45:33for some invasive. So buckthorn, mulberry, and Russian olive, for example, are the three that

1:45:39come to mind right now. And we are considering looking at, we're also going to be looking at

1:45:44that list again. So say you want to remove a buckthorn. You don't need a permit. And the city

1:45:51and our teams, they're the ones that come in and they... So through you, Chair, yeah. So if someone

1:45:59calls and inquires about it and says, I have a buckthorn on my property, I'd like to take it down,

1:46:02we can say, great, you're exempt. There's an exemption for that. You don't need a permit.

1:46:08That would be the simplest way. Or they would educate themselves. If somebody knew, which a lot

1:46:13of people now know what buckthorn is as the example, they might recognize it's a buckthorn and say,

1:46:20great, I've read the bylaw. I see that it's on the list of exemptions. So I'm not even going to call

1:46:24the city because I don't need a permit. So that's the two general ways that it's currently happened.

1:46:30People either already know or they contact the city for a little bit of guidance.

1:46:36And one last question. And this is a suggestion too. Like I know Peel Region, they have like a

1:46:45consulting service they call Fusion Landscaping. And they essentially take summer co-ops to

1:46:50run the program. I was just wondering for those that do need to go through this bylaw,

1:46:58if there are ways in which we can kind of market and formalize the work that you guys are doing

1:47:02with Park Stewards and so the urban forestry staff, just so people know that it's not just a fee

1:47:10that we're collecting, but there's also like a tangible service that people can identify with.

1:47:16Because I think we all, there are factions of our population that agree with the social value

1:47:23that they're providing, but also there are a lot of folks that need something that's more

1:47:27tangible and black and white. So I think something you can kind of market yourselves in a more holistic

1:47:34way as a service as well. I think that would help with the conversation. Through you, Chair, the best

1:47:40example I can think of is our Healthy Landscapes program. That's currently in place, has been in

1:47:46place for I think a decade, at least a decade, if not more actually, now that I think about it. So

1:47:53that is, that's an outreach program. It's through Water Services and they visit people, they visit

1:47:58residents and private property owners all through the summer with seasonals with students, to consult

1:48:07with homeowners about their landscaping and they are very much at the forefront of that

1:48:13outreach and education and either about invasives or what kinds of native plants you can replace

1:48:19your invasive plants with. Yeah, and I know you guys are on top of this, so I just say this for

1:48:25encouragement. If there's more link, if there's linkages to what you guys are already doing and

1:48:30with the bylaw that we're providing, that would help us with the public messaging. Okay, thank you,

1:48:38Councillor Chew. Are there any other questions? I have a question before we go to the comments.

1:48:45Oh, Councillor Billings, thanks. Through you, Madam Chair, I just, I want to be clear on this.

1:48:53Say the homeowners lot does qualify under the private tree bylaw, very large tree, so I'm talking

1:49:00about death disease or major damage. Major damage can be say a major ice storm. So currently,

1:49:09is the homeowner subject to the permit fee and tree compensation or is it exempt and we'll just

1:49:17take the major damage, for example, the ice storm and because of safety reasons, the tree has to come

1:49:24down. So through you, Chair, that would be an exemption. So there's a few exemptions related

1:49:32to hazardous trees or trees that are dead and dying. So those would be exemptions and no permit

1:49:38would be required. Okay, and then if the homeowner calls the city, then does the homeowner still have

1:49:48to, sorry, does the homeowner still have to call the city and have someone from the city come out

1:49:53to make sure whether it's major damage or death to assess, even though I don't have,

1:50:00I'm not required to have a permit? Through you, Chair, currently the way the bylaw is written,

1:50:06you do have to, even though it's an exemption, so that's something we're going to look at because

1:50:11the exemption says you're exempt for say a hazardous tree but with the confirmation of an arborist

1:50:19or city staff. So there is a level of communication that needs to happen or consultation, I guess,

1:50:26whatever you want to call it, that does need to happen. So that's something we're going to look

1:50:30at that process because the exemptions might need to be clear, more black and white, and so we're

1:50:39going to try to build on that. Okay, and then also now this is probably in the presentation,

1:50:48so this is the comparison of options. So option four, and this is approximate canopy cover captured

1:50:58in the percent, so option four is the same as option one plus we have the 50 centimeter diameter

1:51:05on all private lots, and then when you go over to the canopy it's 50 to 69 percent, however option one

1:51:15which is included in option four is 50 percent. So if we're going to include the 50 centimeter

1:51:22diameter on all private lots, then we would have much more than the 50 percent because your range

1:51:28is 50 to 69 whereas 50 is already captured in option one. So do we really know, like instead of

1:51:37saying 50 to 69 percent, do we have a better idea what that canopy percentage is for option four?

1:51:46Through you, Chair, we've let that out as a range but in theory it's 69 percent because

1:51:52for trees that are 50 centimeters. The way that we've done the, we've assumed that the tree sizes

1:52:00are distributed evenly across the city, so there is a bit of an unknown factor. All the 50 centimeter

1:52:08trees could all be in the southeast corner of the city but for the purposes of this exercise,

1:52:14we're assuming even distribution. So yes, if we're, if all the lots have the potential to have

1:52:2350 centimeter trees, then all of the lots and 69 percent of the canopy would in theory

1:52:31have trees that could be regulated. So whereas the 10 centimeters, for again we're talking about

1:52:37option four, if you're only looking at 10 centimeter trees, then it's only for the larger properties

1:52:43and that's why we've included 50, the 50 percent. So it may come across a little bit confusing and I

1:52:50can understand why it was just, it was difficult to communicate in the table but essentially it's 69

1:52:58percent of the canopy but if you're looking at the 50 centimeter trees. Right, so their

1:53:06option three and option four, you're saying really has the, about the same percentage.

1:53:15Yes, now when, if you drill into the details a bit more, 50 centimeter trees only make up about

1:53:22four percent of the total tree population while 20 centimeter trees make up 25 percent and so this

1:53:29this is where the complexity of trying to illustrate this in a small summary table

1:53:35was a bit challenging and we're making a lot of assumptions about the canopy and the distribution

1:53:40of trees. So like option three for example would only regulate 25 percent of the tree population

1:53:49in the city even though it's 69 percent of the tree canopy cover, area-wise and so I yeah I wasn't

1:53:57sure that would come across clear in the report so again with option four we're looking at maintaining

1:54:05the current scope but with recognizing the mature tree population where you know we know a lot,

1:54:12it's the mature trees that are providing a lot of the essential benefits. So it was, it was striking

1:54:19a balance right, I think you can read in the report we considered that 10 centimeter, we looked at

1:54:2610 centimeter trees all properties but you know realizing it would be astronomically difficult to

1:54:33enforce and implement that type of an option. So the 20 centimeter was commonly used in other

1:54:40in comparable municipalities and it was a reasonable number to use and so that's why

1:54:45and it was again through the engagement it was it was favored as well.

1:54:50Okay and last question for you Madam Chair and it's my fault because I didn't elaborate.

1:54:55So going back to compensation I have this a damaged tree I don't need a permit and it comes down

1:55:02but am I still subject to even though I didn't need a tree permit am I still subject to the tree

1:55:08compensation? Through you Chair, no you would not be subject to tree compensation. The only time we

1:55:17can ask for compensation is through a permit. Okay thank you thank you for that clarity.

1:55:25Are there any more questions and I'll just ask a question then we'll go to comments.

1:55:29So I just want to talk about the injury to tree issue because that's one of the ones

1:55:35Demi that you hear from me the most about so there's a lot it doesn't meet the half acre there's

1:55:40there's houses a house being developed on it and there's trees being injured by heavy equipment

1:55:45and fencing and there's nothing we can do about it because there's no protection right now.

1:55:51So you're saying this would protect this bylaw would protect those trees but you then you said

1:55:59it doesn't sound like it's enforceable though it would be elsewhere in the bylaw but so I

1:56:04didn't understand that at all. So to you Chair so it is currently in the bylaw and it is currently

1:56:14enforceable so and we it is applied so but it's not typical we'll get someone reaching out to the

1:56:22city to apply for a permit to injure a tree that's a part of that's going to be a piece of the outreach

1:56:30and education that you know it's buried in there and a lot of people aren't actually aware. It's

1:56:35currently it is currently in the bylaw yes for lots under half an acre.

1:56:43No for over half an acre. So yes so with so with any of those options whatever size property it will

1:56:51will continue to keep that in there so we'll follow through with with destruction and injury

1:56:59those will both go through so that even if you're not say removing a tree on your property but let's

1:57:05say you have again your example there's construction so let's say we've chosen option three and it's all

1:57:12lots there a permit would be required if there would be injury to a tree and then there would be

1:57:21through the tree technical manual there's the minimum tree protection zones and so if it's

1:57:25within that you would in theory be injuring a tree so again that would be the connection.

1:57:31So that that's curing through to the smaller law. Okay okay that's helpful. The other thing I was

1:57:37going to talk about the difference between coniferous trees and deciduous and the size of the trunks

1:57:42because you can get some pretty massive coniferous trees that have very narrow trunks and and so I

1:57:54so I'm a little concerned about the sizing when we get under 10 20 centimeters

1:58:01or because some of those can be pretty significant trees as well so is there any thought to separating

1:58:08out the deciduous to the coniferous trees? To you chair we we did not consider it it's

1:58:17standard to use dbh for deciduous and coniferous both there is we've never seen any differentiation

1:58:26I'm seeing I haven't yeah being consensus okay so that's my question are there any comments?

1:58:40Okay okay okay so there's no more comments no more questions thank you for the work that you've done

1:58:48it's I just really appreciate the the detail that we have on on this and going forward and I look

1:58:56forward to the community being engaged in this moving forward and coming back next year with a

1:59:02bylaw okay is there anyone opposed seeing none this passes thank you and we're going to change

1:59:12chairs again to chair Allt for the audit thank you very much chair downer and before we begin