Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2000-12-18 Council Meeting Agenda and Reports
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE NOTICE OF SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING Please be advised that a Special Council Meeting has been called pursuant to Section 223 of the Local Government Act, as follows: DATE: December 18,2000 HOUR: Immediately following Committee of the Whole PLACE: Council Chamber, Municipal Hall A GENDA Downtown Core Project - Telecommunication Equipment and Wiring Update Staff report dated December 13, 2000 submitting information on the telecommunication needs of the new core facility and estimated costs. Downtown Core Project - Office Systems Tender Staff report dated December 13, 2000 recommending that the District enter into a contractual agreement with Teknion Furniture Systems Limited to supply office furnishings. DP/66100 —23793 - 128th Crescent, Construction of Additions Staff report dated November 30, 2000 recommending that a development permit be issued for construction of three additions to an existing single family dwelling. Maple Ridge Tree Protection By-law No. 5896-2000 Staff report dated November 27, 2000 recommending amendments be made to the subject by-law prior to final adoption. Special Council Meeting Agenda December 18, 2000 Page 2 Adjournment Dated this 13th day of December, 2000 -Z' Terry Fer / (111 Municipal Clerk CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor Al Hogarth DATE: December 13, 2000 and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Committee of the Whole SUBJECT: Core Project - Telecommunications Equipment and Wiring Update Purpose: This memorandum is intended to provide an update on the telecommunications needs of the new core facilities and identifies expected costs. The costs identified in this memorandum are covered in the budgeted funds for the core project. Once the infrastructure design work is completed, a contract will be let for construction. Recommendations: THAT Council receive the report from the Chief Information Officer dated December 13 for information. Background: The core project facilities require telephone and cable, and computer network wiring to be designed and installed. These telecommunications items are needed to support Municipal departments and the library. They are typically not included in tenant improvements but are dealt with separately. The District has retained engineering consultants to help design and tender the telecommunications package for the facilities in three phases. The first phase involves the library and office tower components of the core project. The design work is underway and is expected to be completed, and the construction tender documents finalized, before year end. Phase 2 will see a similar process for the Municipal Hall renovations and the Leisure Centre expansion and will begin before year end. Finally, the Arts Centre telecom design will follow in Phase 3 beginning later in the new year. The tender package for the first phase is expected to be closed January 10th, and the contract awarded at a following Council meeting. The contractor requires a month or so to install and test the wiring so the timing is tighrgiven the anticipated date of occupancy of the new tower. The telecommunications consultant has evaluated in a report the choice between fibre optic cabling to computer workstations or enhanced copper cabling. The report noted that the District will not in the foreseeable future need the enhanced performance offered by fibre optic cabling, nor could they justify the additional cost. The recommended approach for the computer wiring noted a combination of the two would provide the best longer-term performance at reasonable cost. It envisions a wiring network that has fibre optic cabling as the "backbone". This "backbone" connects the various Municipal campus buildings. Computer workstations would be served with copper cabling from the wiring closets. This architecture will provide good JW performance at reasonable cost with the potential to upgrade the workstation connections, in the future if necessary, to fibre optics. It is anticipated that the recommended arrangement will provide for Municipal needs for 10 to 20 years. Alternatives: The new core facilities require appropriate telecommunication infrastructure now and for the future. The contract documents will request alternate pricing options from contractors to identify what choices are available in terms of price versus performance. Financial Implications: The costs associated with the telecom needs of the office tower, library and Leisure Centre are itemized below and are preliminary at this time. Accurate costs will not be available until the engineering design recommendations are completed and, in fact, the contract tender responses are reviewed. These costs will be covered within the existing budget items for Consulting, and Office/Library Renovations. The cost estimates of this report may not include all telecommunications costs associated with the new facilities. For example, the logistics of the computer room move from Municipal Hall to the third floor of the office tower may be complicated, and moving staff from the Hall and the Annex to the tower may necessitate extra incidental expenditures. However, any additional costs are expected to be nominal and once again should be covered within the existing budget envelope. Costs of the telecommunications facilities in the renovated Municipal Hall and the Arts Centre will be determined at a later date, and will be the subject of a separate memo. Below is a breakdown of expected construction costs of the office tower, library and Leisure Centre. Cost Estimate For Telecommunications Equipment and Wiring Workstations Phones Drops Per Cost Per Cost Library 105 29 1 130 17,420 Office Tower 274 111 1 130 50,050 Leisure Centre 59 56 1 130 14,950 Buildings Linkage 24,480 Network Equip 49,000 Phone Equip 20 17,000 SubTotal 172,900 Consulting 22,261 Total 379 $ 195,161 Interdepartmental Implications: Staff recognize that coordination between Departments and the various contractors and consultants undertaking work on our behalf are important. Timing of tenant improvements and office moves require careful consideration. Conclusion: The careful design and installation of the telecommunications component of the new core facilities is critical. The telecom consultant has identified design parameters that will be sufficient to address computing needs for the immediate future, with some expansion capability. The anticipated construction costs noted above is the minimum expected to ensure good performance in support of business operations, and the funds are covered in the core budget. Staff will return at a later date with a memorandum identifying the telecommunications needs of the renovated Municipal Hall. 1 Prepared by: J.1 astaja Chief Information Officer Approved by: P. Gill Gen al Manager, Corporate and Financial Services Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer 91 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RiDGE TO: His Worship Mayor Al Hogarth DATE: December 13, 2000 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: _WroL. SUBJECT: Modular Systems Furniture purchase Purpose/Problem Our office furniture is over ten years old and needs replacement. A new modular choice will set a universal standard for years (10 years life, minimum). This standard will eventually be used by most of our office employees. Our present standard furniture is not suitable for open area work concepts such as the new office tower and the upcoming renovation to Municipal Hall. Recommendation That the District enter into a contractual agreement with Teknion Furniture Systems Limited of Vancouver to supply..M' modular system workstations for a total all-inclusive cost not to exceed $345,828.00. We reserved the right in the RFP to further negotiate the cost and the precise number of pieces and accessories. Our intention is to establish a standard throughout the organization and to add workstations and new pieces as required in years to come. This all —inclusive maximum cost includes all taxes , installation fees, transportation, training and warranties. History/Background Space Planner Hilary Bookham did a site by site workstation by workstation analysis of our office operations and analyzed the needs of each workstation. Ms Bookham recommended vendors and modular systems that are well known as mid-priced good value systems. An employee evaluation team was assembled. This team consisted of ten people from different work areas and occupations (Clerks to a General Manager). They were from ten different departments and were asked to represent their department work group as well as the organization as a whole. The group took their responsibilities seriously, they visited three vendor sites in Vancouver for a thorough look at suitable systems. Many questions were asked and presentations were made to our group. A formal RFP invitation was developed and submissions were opened on December 11. Three vendors submitted proposals Teknion Furniture Systems Ltd, Vancouver BC Heritage Office Furnishings, Vancouver BC Smed International, Vancouver BC The evaluation team rated the three submissions on eight weighted criteria established in the RFP. These criteria were: functionality, product flexibility, warranty, design, esthetics, service, references, and reliability. The Teknion product was selected as the best overall solution. It is also the lowest cost of the three proposals (see attachment) Alternatives Status Quo: Not feasible given the age (over 10 years) and lack of functionality of the current furniture. I 21~1. Financial Implications (See attachment) Funds are available and have been budgeted for this purpose. The total pre —negotiation maximum acquisition cost of the three offers: Teknion $345828.12 Smed $355547.32 Heritage $424748.21 If it is necessary to pare down the cost of the recommended solution (by removing some of the options or using some of our present filing cabinets longer) this will be done. The total maximum cost of a full complement of equipment is relatively close to budget estimates. In the long term there will be much less costly renovation work, no drywall and costly tradespersons. Our staff can do simple office moves and reconfigurations themselves. Modem organizations virtually all use this approach. It is also cost effective for leasehold improvements, you can "pack-up" your offices if you move. Intergovernmental Involvementflmplications None Citizen/Public Relations Involvement/Implications This is mid price range system furniture that is good value. Interdepartmental Involvement/Implications We had good inter departmental participation to recommend the "best overall value" product. This change in approach to our office environment will ultimately affect many employees. The open area concept and furniture fits our objectives to work more in teams rather than isolation. Environmental Implications We will re-use or sell any surplus old furniture wherever possible Other Time is of the essence, there is a significant lead time for this product (6-8) weeks 1 L - Prepared by: Earl Oddstad AJCP, I I ~ 1Z_ C-1- Yk-11~ - Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer MAPL IDGE CITY HALL SYSTEMS FURNITURE FOR WORKSTATIONS BID COMPARISON REQUIREMENT VENDOR #1 - TEKNION VENDOR #2 - SMED VENDOR #3 STEELCASE - PRICING WORKSTATION A $28,785.00 $30,141.05 $39,790.75 WORKSTATION B $60,522.00 $67,217.92 $86,756.74 WORKSTATION C $72,969.00 $77,972.05 $108,230.59 WORKSTATION 0 $20,368.00 $22,084.17 $29,259.78 WORKSTATION E $9,442.00 $11,773.54 $12,804.79 WORKSTATION Fl $15,310.00 $18,140.70 $20,471.30 WORKSTATION F2 $10,933.00 $12,421.76 $15,250.67 WORKSTATION Gi $11,436.00 $13,237.46 $15,957.70 WORKSTATION G2 $14,046.00 $15,462.06 $19,121.16 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS $20,994.00 $26,872.91 $24,942.67 SUBTOTAL $264,805.00 $295,323.62 $372,586.15 DELIVERY $19,603.00 In above In above INSTALLATION $18,950.00 $16,560.00 In above SUBTOTAL $303,358.00 $311,883.62 $372,586.15 PST $21,235.06 $21,831.85 $26,081.03 GST $21,235.06 $21,831.85 $26,081.03 TOTAL $345,828.12 $355,547.32 $424,748.21 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: November 30, 2000 and Members of Council FILE NO: DP166/00 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dev. SUBJECT:, DP/66/00 (Development Permit Area XXX for Watercourse Protection) (23793 - 128th Crescent) EXECUTIVE SUMPvIARY: An application has been made under Development Permit Area XXX for a permit to construct 3 additions on an existing single family residential dwelling located within 50 metres of the Alouette River. The setbacks that have been established by the footprint of the existing building on this property range from 6 to 15 metres from top of bank. The proposed addition would not involve any further encroachment on the setback already established by the existing dwelling. Before a building permit can be issued for the construction of a dwelling, or an addition to a dwelling, adjacent to a protected watercourse a development permit must first be obtained from Council. The applicant for DP/66/00 has submitted a top of bank survey and a building plan that sites the addition on the backside of the dwelling and away from the Alouette River. A significant portion of the addition will also be constructed over top of an existing concrete patio. Due the careful thought and consideration that appears to have gone into siting of the proposed addition to this dwelling staff recommend that Council consider issuing a development permit for this site. II RECOMMENDATION: That the Municipal Clerk-be authorized to sign and seal the Development Permit for the respecting property located in the 23793 - 128th Crescent, subject to the conditions outlined in the memorandum dated November 30, 2000. III BACKGROUND: Applicant: William D. Warner Owner: William D. Warner Legal Description: Lot 10 Sec. 28 TP12 NWD Plan 6438 Zoning: RS-2, One Family Suburban Residential OCP: Suburban Residential 3 IV PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant wishes to construct 3 additions onto an existing dwelling on the property. The existing dwelling lies within 50 meters of the Alouette River, placing the subject site in Development Permit Area XXX. Due to the setback constraints established by the existing structure the applicant is unable to meet the minimum siting requirements Development Permit Area XXX. The applicant has applied for a Development Permit to ensure that Council will support his plans for an addition. V PLANNING ANALYSIS: Three of the objectives of Development Permit Area XXX are: To facilitate environmentally sensitive development of lands adjacent to identified protection areas through particular attention to the subdivision of land, siting of buildings and structures, and areas of parking storage and landscaping. To ensure that adjacent development activity does not encroach upon or alter the protected area(s). To ensure vegetation or trees are maintained and conserved, or alternatively planted as necessary, to control erosion, protect banks, and enhance fish habitat. According to the Development Permit Area XXX Guidelines, the construction of, or addition to, a dwelling next to a watercourse must be setback 30 metres from top of bank, unless a Development Permit is issued to reduce the setback from top of bank. Due to the setback constraints established by the existing structure the applicant would be unable to construct an addition on his home without a Development Permit to reduce the setback requirements. The applicant has submitted a building plan that sites the additions as far back from the Alouette River as possible, and over an existing concrete patio where possible. The entire project will also only require the removal of one cedar tree from the property. Staff support the application and note that the proposed additions do not involve any further encroachment on the setback already established by the existing dwelling. VI CONCLUSION: Based on the plans submitted and the applicants intent to satisfy the objectives of Development Permit Area XXX, staff recommend that DP/66/00 receive favourable consideration by Council and that a performance security-of $1,500.00 -becollected prior to the issuance of the permit. I Services Approved by: Christine Carter, MCI? Director of Planning Approved by\ / Jke J. RudolplifAICP, MCIP \ I:,Ppblic Works4 Development Services Lw- Concurrence: Rd6ert W. Robertson, AICP, MCLP Chief Administrative Officer P 637 I I 50 - c..1 13086 co Ic. LU 1306 - O 22/ 3 13060 P2637 P 12420 ° em23 A 10 LL 51 - 130 R p 7 739 W1/21 E1/215 2 - P 1 420 co 52 13040 —I 57 1302 _ —U - 13020 4 5 0. 58 U, N 13006 p4 11147 N I- - - 13OAVE C, 33 747 04 - _FERN CRES__-- P 46207 25 3 4 P2637 24 P CES P2 56 P 94 P 779 34 A (P741 RS-2 P10335 P1 35 P138 a- 7 6 4 P38 EP 24095 . 1 5 A Rem 10 P 219 26 I 2 P 38 P 6438 P P63118 P638 SUBJECT PROPERTY A P2 297 45 N 0 C, Co c D 47 / I B P 6 27 ci N 13 P 38 4 37 9P38NP 6438 P46567 14 3 7656 2 P Rem 30 23815 6438 1 42 41 40 2 P 15 CD I28AVE . 23863 I2BAVE 2381 128 AVE _________ N P5693 10 \P56791 - ifo27 \EP 22444 31 12788 9 ____________ 12776 2790 1 12770 A a- 1279 11 P5679 \12mo 8 25\ P83316 co A P 991 12 I 1276 Rem (0 ________ 12750 12728 Rem 26 P 82930 ____ 1 )L_ ,J) N 23793-128 CRESCENT CORPOPTION OF 1 QLI THE DISTRICT OF RAADI 'DGE MAPLE RIDGE LAISUIV Ivu-w s.. u . WporW.d 12. Ssptrnbir, 1874 PLANNING DEPARTMENT SCALE: 1:3500 KEY MAP _____ DATE: Nov29 2000 FILE:DP/66/00 BY: JV • : •. • - 4 1 Ji :i4/111 .i •••__--_J - -- - .4 • - - __,__. .• - - f; P' ____________ - • • •' - '•• E, ; •- I ... - L 114. 44 ____ •- MFI-It_..I1 •;: _____ i4•; 0 EflJ #Vf r N of 3o me v rcvrrj CA: :)Ii j Mot ~M~ MAPLE RIDGE Incorporated 12 September. 1874 Site sketch provided by the applicant 1:2500 I. © cOPYRIGHTED BY FENNING AND EATON. 2000 A Partflersflip of Professional Corporations —0.g65 0' cp T4f Bank —u--- HOUSE I / SHED HOUSE / GREEN ç' 3 Elevation of Sill = 25.62 / SHED 9 I 10 GARAGE LIIIII7 SHED LII / CRE-sc C24 1D is geodetic ground elevation Note: Offsets are to siding of buildings B.C. LAND SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE OF LOCATION OF HOUSE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: November 27, 2000 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Committee of the Whole SUBJECT: Public Review of Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No, 5896-2000 Purpose On August 29th, 2000 Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 was granted third reading by Council, and staff were directed to distribute the Bylaw for public comment. A request for comment was mailed directly to the Urban Development Institute, the Greater Vancouver Homebuilders Association, the Alouette River Management Society, the Kanaka Education and Environmental Partnership Society, and a few local arborists and tree removal contractors. Staff have reviewed the comments provided by the above mentioned stakeholders and are recommending that some amendment be made to Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 prior to final adoption. Recommendations That Council rescind 3'' reading granted to Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 on September 12, 2000; That Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 as recommended in the report dated November 27, 2000 entitled "Public Review of Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000" be amended; and That Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 as amended be read a third time. HistoryfBackground Over the last few years it has become apparent that the current Tree Protection Bylaw (No. 4903-1993) does not allow for the sufficient protection of sensitive riparian habitat or address the need for mitigating the erosion and drainage impacts associated with land clearing. Past experience has shown that unregulated tree removal in a community known for its poor soils and high precipitation has had drainage and siltation implications for local streams, municipal drainage systems, andneigkbowing.properties. - Staff are finding themselves increasingly questioned about the District's lack of involvement in the regulation of tree removal on private property and are having to respond to an increasing number of complaints regarding sediment loading and drainage impacts to streams and neighboring properties resulting from tree removal. At present, property owners are not required to consult with the District when removing trees from private property outside of the 9 metre riparian protection corridor established under Tree Protection Bylaw No. 4903-1993. Current provincial riparian protection standards require that a minimum 15 metre riparian corridor be protected along all watercourses, out-dating the 9 metre protection standard found in the District's current Tree Protection Bylaw (No. 4903-1993). LI in an effort to improve the mitigation of environmental impacts associated with tree removal, staff are suggesting that the current tree protection regulation be expanded to: (a) more adequately address riparian corridor protection; (b) include lands in the Urban Area with development potential; and (c) require sediment control planning as part of the permit application process. Discussion As drafted, Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 divides the District into two tree protection areas: the Rural Area and the Urban Area. 2lIJ HPT .1 JA M. m• ._::1f::1.. The Urban Area includes the current and future urban growth areas of the District, and applies to: Trees on parcels of land that can be subdivided to create two or more new lots according to Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 35 10-1985; Trees* on parcels of land that are 1 acre (0.4 hectares) or greater in size; Trees within a Developmental Permit Area as designated in the Official Community Plan; Trees along 124th Avenue (Shady Lane) between 216th Street and Laity Street; Trees that are on slopes of 1:5 or greater or within 15 meters of the top-of-bank of all watercourses. The Rural Area includes the suburban and rural areas of the District, and only applies to: Trees' on slopes of 1:5 (rise over run) or greater; Trees* within 15 meters of the top-of-bank of all watercourses; Trees* within a Development Permit Area as designated in the Official Community Plan; Trees within a Forest Reserve as designated in the Official Community Plan. * Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 only applies to trees that are greater than 10 centimeters (4 inches) in diameter measured at 150 centimeters (5 feet) above natural grade. In order to provide some flexibility to the private property owner in the Urban Area who wishes to remove trees for landscaping, safety or access purposes staff are suggesting that no permit be required for the removal of trees severely damaged by natural causes or for the removal of up to 3 trees/acre/year. To eliminate the need for multiple permits, properties in the Urban Area where tree protection and removal areas have been identified as part of an approved development application or building permit staff are also suggesting that a tree removal permit not be required. As described above, a tree-cutting permit would not be required in the Rural Area of the community unless a property owner wished to remove a tree from within the 15 metres riparian protection area or from a steep slope (1V:5H). Tree removal from within the 15 metre riparian protection area would also require the approval of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. The application strategy suggested under Tree Protection Bylaw would allow the District to place some controls on the tree removal process on lands within the Urban Area where tree removal pressures are the greatest, while still ensuring the protection of environmentally sensitive areas (i.e. stream corridors and steep slopes) throughout the District. Public Comment Comments on the draft Tree Protection Bylaw were received from 6 of the 11 organizations asked to review the bylaw, as well as a few members of the general public. Staff have reviewed those comments and are recommending that some amendment be made to Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 prior to final consideration of the Bylaw. There appears to be a general consensus among all those who reviewed the bylaw that the principles behind the development of a more comprehensive tree protection in Maple Ridge were sound. Tree removal contractors were of the opinion that the adoption of such a bylaw would level the "playing field" within the industry by limiting the amount of work available for finns less inclined to pay attention to provincial and federal environmental regulation. The following is a summary of the comments received from the public: Woodlot impacts There was some concern that the Bylaw would apply to small wood lot operations in Maple Ridge that are currently regulated by the BC Ministry of Forests, like the BCIT wood lot. Since it was not the intent of the Bylaw to place controls on tree removal already regulated by a senior government agency staff are recommending that the Bylaw be amended to include an exemption for tree removal approved by the BC Ministry of Forest. Slope reduction After reviewing the Iyw inrnor&detail staffare of-the opimon-that the defmitionaSt 1ön1' %(1V:5H) places fairly onerous requirements on prospective applicants. Under the requirements for tree removal on steep slopes, applicants are required to provide a geotechnical report to address erosion, landslip and flooding. The cost of a geotechnical report on average is between $2,000 to $5,000. In taking a look atsome lands impacted by the 20% slope criteria staff areconcerned that-the requirement for a geotechnical report is onerous and in most cases unwarranted. It is for this reason that staff are recommending that the definition of a steep slope be changed to apply to slopes of 1:3 (rise over run) or greater. Staff believe that the general requirement for erosion and drainage control that must be considered in the application process by all applicants will address the erosion and drainage concerns associated with removal on slopes less than 1:3 (rise over run). Site plan expense There was some concern that requiring an applicant to submit a site plan would be a cost prohibitive expense for property owners. The site plan required under the Bylaw, however, does not have to be prepared by a professional. A hand drawn sketch showing the trees to be protected and the trees to be removed is acceptable. District staff will be conducting site visits prior to permit issuance to ensure that trees marked for removal and for protection are as shown in the documentation provided to District by the applicant. Professional survey drawings are only required when a subject property contains a watercourse. BC Land Surveyor expense The way the Bylaw has been structured a survey prepared by a BC Land Surveyor is required for properties where tree removal is adjacent to a watercourse. There was some concern expressed about the expense associated with this requirement, but it needs to be recognized that a BC Land Surveyor is the only person, other than the provincial or federal agency, who can certify the location of a watercourse top of bank. Staff believe that this is the most appropriate way of ensuring that the riparian zone is protected and that liability for failure to protect that area is reduced, both for the property owner and the District. Erosion Control Plans On sites greater than 1 hectare (2.5 acres) tree removal is restricted by the Bylaw to between April 15th and October 15th, unless a professionally prepared erosion control plan is provided. The Bylaw was drafted in this manner to try and encourage tree removal only during the drier times of the year. However, property owners do still have the option for tree removal outside of the suggested tree removal window, if a professionally prepared erosion control plan is provided to the District. Hazard trees The Bylaw has been drafted to allow for the emergency removal of trees that have been severely damaged by natural causes and are in imminent danger of falling and injuring persons or property, without requiring a tree removal permit. This exemption does not include, however, the removal of "Hazard trees" which by definition are trees that outwardly appear to pose no threat to life or property and requires an arborists report to confirm that the tree should be removed and a permit must be obtained. There is no charge proposed for a permit to remove a Hazard tree. Given the exemption for the removal of 1-3 trees per acre per year that is built into the bylaw the only situation where the request for the removal of a Hazard tree permit might occur is for trees is located in a watercourse protection area. Replacement Trees As established under this Bylaw tree replacement is only required for the removal of trees from within the riparian corridor or for trees that are removed in violation of the Tree Protection Bylaw. Applications for tree removal from the riparian corridor will have to be reviewed by the District's Environmental Review Committee, where provincial and federal agencies will review the application before a permit is issued. The requirement for the replacement of trees removed from the riparian corridor is a long-standing provincial and federal agency requirement. Replacement Security There was some concern that the $400 security required to ensure that a replacement tree is planted accordingly was too high. In working to establish the most appropriate level of security for the Bylaw staff used the average cost estimate for the purchase and planting of a street tree by the District. District staff do not believe this sum is unreasonable recognizing that replacement and, therefore, security will only be required for unlawful tree removal or the removal of one or two trees for hazard management purposes from within the nparian protection area. Staff do not feel, however, that it is necessary to hold back all or a portion of that security for more than one year and, therefore, recommend that thebylaw be amended to allow for the return of the replacement security one year from the date of tree planting. Heritage trees To ensure that consideration is given to trees of unique cultural or aesthetic, value staff are suggesting that the Tree Protection Bylaw be referred to the Community Heritage Commission for their review and input on how best to address historically and culturally significant vegetation in future amendments to the Bylaw. Survey line exemption It was suggested that the exemption for trees removed to establish for survey lines should only apply to trees less than 25 cm in diameter and that the removal of trees over that diameter should require the approval of the District. Staff support this suggestion and are recommending that the bylaw be amended accordingly. Composting of Woodwaste There was some question about whether or not the composting of land clearing woodwaste would be considered as a disposal option under the Tree Protection Bylaw. As previously discussed with Council this is not an option that can be supported by staff because of leachate, combustion, and stability concerns associated with the compost and burial of woodwaste. There have been several instances in the community where buried woodwaste has resulted in large land slumps and even fires. Staff do, however, support the disposal of green waste at the GVRD transfer station or through the District's annual chipping program. 1.) Fees In order to help facilitate compliance with the new Tree Protection Bylaw it was suggested that perhaps the permit fees could be reduced or perhaps even eliminated. The fees currently suggested by the Bylaw are: No charge Hazard trees $150 Parcels of 2.5 acres or less $300 Parcels greater than 2.5 acres While staff recognize the possible compliance implications of requiring a permit fee for tree removal, staff believe that the costs involved in processing and monitoring permit applications need to be covered at least in part by the permit fees. Staff are, therefore, recommending that no change be made to the permit fee structure. m:There-wasalsosomequestion-aboutwhytherecoUid&t-bedifferefltiatiOfl-betWeefl-deeidUOUSafld..... evergreen trees and why most of the controls established under the Bylaw apply only to the urban area. The Bylaw has been drafted not to try to prohibit tree removal, but to mitigate the environmental impacts associated with tree removal. Recognizing that bylaw implementation needs to be monitored for its effectiveness staff are suggesting that tree permit and removal activity be monitored for 6 months following the adoption of the Bylaw and that a status report be prepared for Council. Suggested Bylaw Amendments In light of the comments received during the public review process, staff would like Council to consider the following amendments to Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000: • Section 2, be amended to repeal the Maple Ridge Erosion Control and Tree Cutting Bylaw No. 4267- 1989, the contents of which staff will be incorporating into the proposed Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000. • Section 3, under Definitions, be amended to include a definition for the newly proposed Geotechnical Protection Area that will address the lands previously referenced in the bylaw suggested for repeal, Erosion Control and Tree Cutting Bylaw No. 4267-1989. • Section 4(h), be amended to increase slope steepness from 1:5 to 1:3 (rise over run). • Section 4(k), be included to require a permit for the removal of trees within the newly defined Geotechnical Protection Area. • Section 6(h), be included to exempt tree removal approved by the BC Ministry of Forests; • Section 6(i), be amended to only exempt the removal of trees less than 25 centimetres in diameter for the establishment of survey lines. • Section 8(i), be amended to change the slope reference from 1:5 to 1:3 (rise over run). • Section 8(k) and (1), be included to establish the application requirements for tree removal for the newly added Geotechnical Protection Area. • Section 10, be amended to only require the holding of a security for tree replacement for one year after planting. • Schedule "C", be included to delineate the lands designated as the new Geotechnical Protection Area. These proposed amendments should help facilitate the implementation of a more effective Tree Protection Bylaw. Staffing and Financial Implications The administration and enforcement of the bylaw will be the responsibility of the Planning Department's Development and Environmental Services staff. Implementation of the bylaw will rely on current staffing resources and will involve a review and inspection mechanism similar to the one already used by the Planning Department for the soil deposit permit process. The Environmental Technician, in consultation with the staff arborist will review and critique permit applications, and conduct site visits to confirm bylaw compliance. As presented, the staffing implications of the proposed Tree Protection Bylaw are expected to be minimal. Staff does suggest, however, that tree removal activity be monitored for 6 months following the adoption of the proposed bylaw and that staff then report back to Council on the effectiveness and impact of the implementation of the bylaw. To support the enforcement of the bylaw staff are also recommending that Maple Ridge Ticketing Information System Utilization Bylaw No. 4432-1990 be amended to include a system of fmes for the removal of trees without a permit and the discharging of excessive sediment loads to a watercourse or drainage system during the removal process. It is estimated that the fines will range between $100 and $250 per offense (per tree), pending the approval of the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court. Intergovernmental Involvement The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada will be involved in the review of tree removal permits in the riparian protection area. Agency approval will be required before the removal of any vegetation within the riparian corridor can be undertaken. Staff do hope that following the adoption of this bylaw an agreement can be reached with the agencies that would allow the municipality to process these types of applications without having to refer them to the agencies. Other For Council's information there were only 4 properties where tree clearing occurred during the public review process that staff suspected were directed related to the possible adoption of a new Tree Protection Bylaw. Two of the properties were within the rural area and two within the urban area, as defined under the draft Tree Protection Bylaw. Three of the sites are under review by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for suspected Fisheries Act violations. Summary/Conclusion Staff are recommending that Council consider rescinding the P reading granted the Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 on September 12, 2000, to allow staff to amend the bylaw in response to comments received from the public. Staff ask that Council endorse the proposed amendments to Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 and again consider granting the Bylaw P reading. / Prepared by: Kim lGrout, P and Environmental Services aAkjju a~~Zz Approved by: Christine Carter, MCIP Director of Planning Approve b: \Jjkey J. Rudolph4'ICPMCIP Public Wo ks & Development Services C1.3 Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 5896-2000 A bylaw to regulate and prohibit tree cutting and removal in Maple Ridge. WHEREAS, it is expedient to amend Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000. AND WHEREAS, Section 708 of the Municipal Act enables Council by bylaw to regulate and prohibit the cutting and removal of trees; AND WHEREAS, Section 709 of the Municipal Act enables Council to permit and establish conditions and fees for permit issuance; AND WHEREAS, Section 725.1 of the Municipal Act enables Council by bylaw to prohibit a person from polluting, obstructing or impeding the flow of a stream, creek, waterway, watercourse, waterworks, ditch, drain, or sewer NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: Citation This bylaw may be cited for all purposes as the "Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000" Repeal The "Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 4903-1993", "Maple Ridge Erosion Control and Tree Cutting Bylaw No. 4267-1989", and the "Maple Ridge Tree Removal Bylaw No. 887-1968" are hereby repealed. "Definitions "Certified Arborist" means a person certified by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) "Cut" and "Cutting" means the removal, knocking down or cutting into, any or all parts, of any tree in such a manner that damages or is detrimental to the health of any tree. "Development Permit Area" means the areas so described within the Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 5434-1996 as Development Permit Area No. XVII, XIX, XX, XXVI, XXX. Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 2 "Drainage System" means the system and network of streams, creeks, waterways, watercourses, waterworks, ditches, drains or sewers located in the District on private or public property, by which water is conveyed or travels from lands. "Drip Line" means the vertical line extending down from the outer most branches of the tree to the natural grade of the land. "Excessive Suspended Solids Discharge" means a fluid discharge containing suspended solids that exceed 75 mgulitre above background levels of suspended solids in the Drainage System to be determined by measuring the natural or existing suspended solids upstream of the point of discharge in the Drainage System and the excessive suspended solids discharge at the immediate outlet point of the discharge. "Forest Reserve" means the area so described in the Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 5434- 1996. "Geotechnical Protection Area" means the area of land designated for tree protection as shown in Schedule "C". "Hazard tree" means a tree that is determined to be in a condition dangerous to people or property by a Certified Arborist. "Heritage Protection Area" means the area of land designated for tree protection as shown in Schedule "A". "Large Woody Debris" means fallen, dead trees and snags, eroded root structures and logs within the Watercourse Protection Area. "Manager of Development and Environmental Services" means the Manager of Development and Environmental Services for the District of Maple Ridge and/or designate. "Owner" means the registered owner or owners of a fee simple parcel of land and the trees growing on it. "Removed or Removal" in relation to a tree means to remove in whole or in part. "Replacement tree" means a tree planted pursuant to Section 10. "Rural Area" means the area of land designated as Rural in Schedule "B". "Topping" means the removal of the dominant leader or crown of a tree. "Urban Area" means the area of land designated as Urban in Schedule "B". Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 3 "Watercourse Protection Area" means the area of land within 15 meters of the top-of-bank on either side of a watercourse described on Schedule E of the Maple Ridge Official Community Plan. "Wildlife tree" means a Tree that provides present or future habitat for the maintenance or enhancement of wildlife as defined in the British Columbia's Wildlife Tree Classification System published in "Wildlife Tree Management in British Columbia". 4. Application This bylaw applies to Trees having a diameter of at least 10 centimeters measured from a height of 150 centimeters above the natural grade and which are: on any parcel of land in the Urban Area that has sufficient lot area to create two or more new lots within the requirements of the existing zoning pursuant to Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 35 10-1985; on any parcel of land in the Urban Area that is 1 acre (0.4 hectares) or greater in size; C. within a Development Permit Area; on land owned by the District or in the possession of the District; identified for retention as part of a subdivision approval, development permit or building permit; within a Forest Reserve; Wildlife trees; on slopes of 1:3 (rise over run) or greater; within a Watercourse Protection Area; within a Heritage Tree Protection Area; within a Geotechmcai Protection Area. 5. Prohibitions No person may cut or remove a tree without a valid permit issued pursuant to this bylaw. Without limiting Section 5 (a), no person shall damage a tree by soil compacting, deposition or removal of soil or constructing a hard or impervious surface within the Drip Line. Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 ru C. No person is to fail to comply with the terms and conditions of a permit issued pursuant to this bylaw. d. No person will cause or permit any Excessive Suspend Solids Discharge to be released, directly or indirectly into the Drainage System as a result of works pursuant to this bylaw. 6. Exemptions Except in respect to trees referred to in S.4 (i), (j) and (k) no permit shall be required to cut or remove a tree where: no more than 3 trees are cut or removed for every acre or part thereof (0.4 hectares) for any reason in any 12 month period; a subdivision plan has been approved that identifies tree removal and protection areas; C. a development permit has already been issued that identifies tree removal and protection areas; the Cutting down of trees as is required to site a building, driveway, septic field, roadway, or utility corridor as approved by a building permit; emergency Removal of trees that are severely damaged by a natural cause, which as a result pose an imminent danger of falling and injuring persons or property; trees are on parks or municipally owned lands and the Cutting or Removal is conducted by or on behalf of the District of Maple Ridge; Cutting or Removal of trees by standard aboricultural practices for the maintenance of above ground utility conductors by a public utility or its contractors; approval for tree removal has been obtained from the BC Ministry of Forests; are Cutting trees less than 25 centimetres in diameter, measured from a height of 150 centimetres above natural grade, for survey lines less that 2 meters wide; tree Cutting or Removal is required for construction, improvement, repair or maintenance of public works or services undertaken by a governmental authority 7. Permits a. When a tree is permitted to be Cut or Removed, such activity shall be undertaken in compliance with the conditions imposed by this Bylaw and all special conditions specified in the Permit. Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 b. An application for a permit will: include a fully completed and signed form as set out in Schedule "D"; and be accompanied by the applicable permit fee calculated in accordance with Section 11. C. A permit issued under this bylaw will be valid for a period of 12 months from the date of issuance and is non-transferable. 8. Plans and Specifications Where an application for a permit pursuant to this bylaw is required, application will be made in writing to the Manager of Development and Environmental Services and must contain the following information: a statement of purpose and rationale for the proposed tree Cutting; a site plan indicating the location of the trees to be Cut, trees to be protected, topographic and hydrographic features, structures, roads and other pertinent information useful in the determination of location. C. a proposed planting plan for any necessary replacement trees; method for appropriate disposal of any woodwaste/cleanng debris; method for control of drainage and erosion impacts from the tree removal site; a copy of any applicable federal or provincial approvals; Parcels that are adjacent to or contain a watercourse: Every application for tree Removal on a property that is adjacent to or contains any part of a watercourse must provide along with the application a survey that identifies top-of-bank prepared by a B.C. Land Surveyor. Parcels greater than 2.5 acres (1 hectare): Every application for tree Removal on parcels greater than 2.5 acres (1 hectare) between October 15th to April 15 0' of any given year will require an erosion and sediment control plan prepared by a qualified professional, at the applicant's expense, to deal with bare and exposed soil. Steep slopes: Every application for tree Removal on a steep slope, 1:3 (rise over run) or greater, must be accompanied by a report prepared by a qualified geotechnical engineer that certifies that the proposed tree Removal will not create increased flooding, erosion, or landslip caused by stormwater runoff directed from the tree removal site. Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 A statement signed by the applicant ensuring that the applicant will be responsible for undertaking and completing all works required by the geotechnical engineer in accordance with the report described in subsection (i). Geotechnical Protection Area: Every application for tree Removal within a Geotechnical Protection Area must be accompanied by a report prepared by a qualified geotechnical engineer that certifies that the proposed tree Removal will not create increased flooding, erosion, or landslip on the property or adjacent properties. A statement signed by the applicant ensuring that the applicant will be responsible for undertaking and completing all works required by the geotechnical engineer in accordance with the report described in subsection (k). Hazard Tree m. Every application for the Removal of a Hazard Tree shall be accompanied by a report prepared by a certified arborist. 9. Tree Removal Where Cutting or Removal of trees has been authorized by the District, and a valid and subsisting permit exists, the person undertaking the cutting or removal must: dispose of the tree parts by chipping or burning in accordance with provincial and District regulations; keep the Drainage System free of Excessive Suspended Solids Discharge originating from the tree removal area; C. stabilize all bare and exposed soil by Oct. 15th of any given year in order to reduce potential erosion impacts; restrict all tree Removal work to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. everyday of the week except Sunday, when work is prohibited; - Parcels greater than 2.5 acres (1 hectare): conduct tree Removal on parcels greater than 2.5 acres (1 hectare) from April 15 th to October 15th of any given year, unless an erosion control plan prepared by a qualified professional has been approved by the District and implemented prior to site disturbance; and Watercourse Protection Area: when Cutting Hazard Trees, within the Watercourse Protection Area, leave such trees as Large Woody Debris in order to retain fish and wildlife habitat or alternatively replace such tree in accordance with the provisions of Schedule "D". Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 7 10. Replacement Trees Where compliance is required with Sections 9(f) and 13(e) the owner shall replace the trees Cut and Removed with new trees planted on the same parcel in accordance with the requirements set out and determined in Schedule "D". An Owner of Replacement trees shall maintain the same in accordance with standard arboricultural practice. C. Prior to the issuance of a permit the Owner shall provide the District with a security deposit in the amount of $400.00 per Replacement tree in cash or irrevocable letter of credit. d. The amount of security shall held by the District for one year from the date the replacement tree(s) are planted provided that the Manager of Development and Environmental Services is satisfied that the Owner has complied with the tree replacement criteria. 11. Fees An application for a permit must pay the following fees prior to the issuance of a permit: No charge Hazard Trees $150 more than 3 trees per acre on a parcel of 2.5 acres (1 hectare) or less $300 more than 3 trees per acre on a parcel greater than 2.5 acres (1 hectare) 12. Administration and Enforcement This bylaw will be administered by the Manager of Development and Environmental Services or designate(s). The Manager of Development and Environmental Services, the Bylaw Enforcement Officer and all District employees under their direction will have the right at all reasonable hours to enter upon and inspect any land or premises in the District to determine if the provision of the Bylaw are being met. 13. Offense a. Every person who violates any provision of this Bylaw or who suffers or permits any act or thing to be done in contravention of this Bylaw is guilty of an offence against this Bylaw and is liable to the penalties hereby imposed. b. Every person who committee an offence against this Bylaw is liable to a fine and penalty of not more than $10,000.00 for each offence. Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 8 C. Where more than one tree is Cut down, Removed or damaged in violation of this bylaw a separate offense is committed with respect to each tree. Each day that a violation exists or continues shall constitute a separate offense. In addition, any owner who cuts, removes or damages, or suffers or permits any tree to be cut, removed or damaged in contravention of this bylaw or in violation of any terms and conditions of the permit will be required to replace trees on the same parcel in accordance with Schedule "D" for each tree impacted within the Watercourse Protection Area, or in all other areas at a ratio of 2 replacement trees of the same species for each tree impacted provided that no replacement tree is less than 1.5 metres in height. If any section or lesser portion of this Bylaw is held invalid, it will be severed and the validity of the remaining provisions of this will not be affected. Schedules "A", "B", "C", "D" , "E", and "F' attached to this Bylaw are incorporated herein and form part of the bylaw. READ a first time this day of , 2000. READ a second time this day of ,2000. READ a third time this day of , 2000. RECONSIDERED AND ADOPTED this thy of ,2000. MAYOR CLERK — — I - " EXETER AVE. r23O 241I 210 I2 •I 12520 ID 12 I_ 30 I 2 1 2 p 46 4 "u' L i 70 71 6 — _ _ P 01769 1/) __________ I— __ A-sw - I•) 1250 174 p ________ P 51858 I I 226 22 28 243 212 129i6) - - P24236 . r1 23l229' 242aj 211 IL 175 Z 176 - 151 1 i a. , >... p •• _____ SPRINGAVE. "I II 0 " iv' 25 ' P 36952 89697 225 215 213 P 01 69 215 177 152 'v" 199 I I i 10 ----- 24 a I 224 223 - $70 66 2 0 ima $53 - __j _________ ___________________ 214 —---i P 6949 , 214 9. "i CHERRY PLACE __ p i0000 25k j54253 I_ " "3 LNG 200 209 P 6039 P 5160 210 12 213 179 154 [222 Rim 222 5 I80a si.si 2 155 23 21 20 19 160 DOUGLAS AVE. , I" P 2 526 220 210 216 200," a - - I - -- — — — _______ .1.! N3-O4 3c1 r r'•"k ;, &) P I 48) 6796 .' • I •I.. ii; 2ooV 19>\ IS? a 307 206 2051 204 Re 6 5 4 3 2 159 AV)47 244 j192 m 201 I 51180 AV " 322 I "•9 a 4'P 5I60 lOB I'13765h 4 l 42 4 44 45 a i lilt 303300 4, I I 302 2_ 2141 21512161 217 C'.1IMP 3730 _: A 9 E 2 I 92 93 94 95 96 97 12$ Rim I 1 10P( — 309 — 11) F- 2 P 6 640 I 218 INIV„.v, 2 310 P 7478 ________________ iu,. 250 $12 1 113 N ..J 0 06 282 $6 21 I "I II.MS %8 LA __ o 2$ 7 16 P 62639 0 281 312 P 37928 17 < Wi: liisO _______ C) ma 311 4I6 P6120 1261561 P2658 Pt 700 213 698$ 189111 ' • i Il25 I p 72245 "-'4' ___ -°. L i84 I II 22 25 P2 h L 260” 3)3 I 'Ii' 2 856 32 31,029 2637262524 23 22 14 13 iI II 211 20 A2 __________ P 72950 l53)4 6 "MV' 6 27 26 AL 23 _ 3 AVE. — 123 CT AREA UNDER PROTECTION CORPORATiON OF THE noft ~~W~e I Q, DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE HERITAGE TREE PROTECTION PLANNING AREA "A" — BYLAW 5896-2000 MAPLE RIDGE DEPARTMENT Incorporated 12 September. 1174 SCHEDULE A FILE/BYLAW; 5896-2000 DATE: APR. 6. 2000 SCALE: N.T.S 4 S. .I!I::::;IuIIuuIul 60.5 45 P 9218 69426 20.1 Rem 35 33 Rem 34 4206/. , 207 LMP 172 208 PcI. 209 42&' 1.31 ha 210 2217J 211 22177 cli 212 CD 213 •1 0. I-. (, N N 85 86 11 •12 13 14 15 16 P 4 796 P 1125 1185 P 1125 (P 11251 8 7 6 5 4 3 B . rr[RerrReml 242 11850 Rem 38 P 62478 p 1125 H 1.— EP 67823 ___________________________ I 1184 EP 822 P 6821 1.281ha 0 N If) .J — CN 2 0. 1 0 U, _ P 25 en 0 NI IM 19 18 17 16 15 14 I 13 I 12 I ii P814 - - I 21.3 "7 91 -;- 218 2 7 1 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 LLLLL-\-- NI LOUGHEED HWY. N k NN A 10 9 8 7 16 5 4 P68759 P 861 1 EP 8164 11758 rr —i- LMP 0226: 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 -44 L24243 th (I I, po -j c'.I 00 p., co Rem Pg 0.68 0 6.1 75 CLIFF AVL .- 0 0 0 Rem 84 73 74 75 46 Park P 30365 50 P 69427 49 48 °47 21976 1L. 171 P 9218 g 19 193 194 \190 g 27 64 4 4 195 if i% 179 188 .. 16 168 6' 178 — 180 1172 196 Re'rti 16 LMP 3369 187 i72 9Z ' 197 2Q 198 LMP 3098 1 2 177 cl 181 186 N) n 176 P 94 202 p 69 203 69428 77 9421 200 201 183 184 185 :778 182 RW 6942 174..f/7O RIVER BEND 224 (12307I!7 22/74 ,- " ' 22, / RP5159 TREE PROTECTION BYLAW SILVrR N pai uucws SCHEDULE C LE BYLAW No. 5896-2000 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE SCALE: Incarparsted 12 Septeber. 1874 MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1:2500 DRAWN BY: T.M. I DATE: NOV. 29. 2000 I FILE: Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 Corporation of the District of Maple. Ridge Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5 896-2000 SCHEDULE "D" Tree Replacement Criteria The criteria below applies to the replacement of trees required under Section 10 of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5 896-2000. Diameter* of trees cut or removed 100mm to 151 mm. 152 mm to 304 mm 305 mm to 456 mm. 457 mm to 609 mm 610 mm or greater Replacement Criteria 2 replacement trees (mm. of 1.5 m ), or, 4 native shrubsA ( for up to 50% of trees being replaced in this range) 3 replacement trees (mm. height of 1.5 m.) 4 replacement trees (mm. height of 1.5 m.) 6 replacement trees (mm. height > 2.0 m.) 8 replacement trees (mm. height > 2.0 m.) *diameter measured from a height of 150 centimeters above the natural grade > greater than £ shrub species to be approved by the Manager of Environmental Affairs Species of native trees cut or removed Grand Fir Abies grandis Bigleaf Maple Acer macrophyllum Red Alder Alnus runbra Western Paper Birch Betula papyrzfera Sitka Spruce Picea sitchensis Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Black Cottonwood Populus trichocarpa Shore Pine Pinus contorta -_-_Douglas-Fir----1seudotusga-menziesii--- Western Red Cedar. Thuja plicata Western Hemlock Tsuga hezerophylla Alternative replacement species Douglas Fir or Western Hemlock Western Paper Birch or Trembling Aspen Big leaf Maple or Western Paper Birch Big leaf Maple or Trembling Aspen Shore Pine or Douglas Fir Black Cottonwood Red Alder or Western Paper Birch Douglas Fir Western-Red Cedar Grand Fir or Douglas Fir Grand Fir or Douglas Fir or Western Red Cedar Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 10 Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 SCHEDULE "E" I Application for Tree Removal Full name(s) and address of applicant: Postal Code: Telephone: or_________________ Full name(s) and address of owner: Postal Code: Telephone: or________________ Full name(s) and address of tree cutting company: Telephone: __ or Property proposed for tree removal: Street Address: Legal Description: Purpose of proposed tree removal: Please see attached arborist report as required under Section 8 (m) of the bylaw U Species of trees to be cut:___________________________________________________________ Methods proposed to control drainage and erosion impacts to adjacent lands or nearby watercourses from the tree removal site: Please see attached erosion control plan as required under Section 8 (h) of the bylaw U Please see attached geotechnical report as required under Section 8 (i)&(k) of the bylaw U Methods proposed to restore the site to a suitable condition, including appropriate disposal of wood waste and stabilization of bare and exposed soil: Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 11 9. Attached as part of this application is a dimensional sketch of the property which shows the location of the trees to be cut or removed, the location of the trees to be protected, the location of barrier fencing, the location and species of any required replacement trees, topographic and hydrological features, structures, roads and other information useful in determining location. Please see attached survey report as required under Section 8 (g) of the bylaw 0 Note: Applications for a permit shall be accompanied by the prescribed fee as follows: No charge for removal of hazard trees $150 dollars for the removal of more than 3 trees on a parcel of 2.5 acres (1 hectare) or less. $300 for the removal of more than 3 trees on a parcel greater than 2.5 acres (1 hectare). I HEREBY DECLARE that the above information is correct, and that I have read a copy of the District of Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 and that I will abide by all the applicable provisions of the said bylaw and such terms and conditions as may form part of any Tree Removal Permit issued pursuant to this application. I understand that I will be required to provide a security deposit as required by this bylaw to guarantee the provision and maintenance of all Replacement trees in accordance with Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000. Name of Applicant(s): Signature of Applicant(s): Date: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Received from: this day of 20 the sum of $ -for Tree Removal Permit Application fee. Date issued: Permit No. Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5 896-2000 12 Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 SCHEDULE "F' Tree Cutting Permit This permit is issued pursuant to Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000. 2. This permit applies only to those lands legally described as: (the "Lands") 3. This permit is issued to: (the "Permittee") 4. This permit authorizes the Permittee to cut and remove only the trees in those areas on the Lands shown and described on Schedule 1 of this Permit subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set out. 5. This permit is issued subject to the following conditions: any tree authorized to be cut or removed by the Permit shall only be cut or removed in strict compliance with the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000. no tree shall be cut or removed in those areas described on Schedule 1 of this Permit until: such areas have first been demarcated on the Lands by tape, ribbon or stakes and a barrier has been placed around those trees to be retained; such area or areas have been inspected by the Manager of Environmental Affairs or their designate to ascertain whether they comply with the permission herein; and the Manager of Development and Environmental Services or designate has signed this Permit in the space provided below. 6. The authorization herein-to cut or remove trees expires and is of no further force or effect one year after the date of the issuance of this Permit. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY I, ,the Manager of Development and Environmental Services or designate have inspected the land to which this permit applies for the purposes of Section 5 (b) of this Permit. Manager of Development and Environmental Services DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 1 MA1!LE RIDGE Council Meeting of: December 18, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR That the staff report entitled "Core Project - Telecommunications Equipment and Wiring Update" dated December 13, 2000 be received for information. "Al Hogarth" DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO:Chief Administrative Officer - 1en Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP - Fire Chief Dir - Corporate Support Dir - Finance Chief Information Officer - Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws - Municipal Engineer Dir - Development Engineering Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering - Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services - Dir - Parks & Facilities Clerk's Section - Municipal Clerk - Confidential Secretary - Jo-Anne H Karla K - Sandra Belley The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. December 18, 2000 Date 1~ ~,', ~ /~7 pal,,(~ rk DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 2 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: December 18, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR That Teknion Furniture Systems Limited of Vancouver be awarded the contract to supply 57 modular system workstations for a total all-inclusive (taxes, installation fees, transportation, training and warranty) cost not to exceed $345,828.0Oó.ZI "Al Hogarth" DEFEATED DEFERRED YOR ACTION NOTICE TO: - Chief Administrative Officer - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP Fire Chief - Dir - Corporate Support t)ir - Finance - - Chief Infonnation Officer -en Mgr - Public Works & Development Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws - Municipal Engineer - Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations Dir - Project Engineering - Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services Dir - Parks & Facilities Clerk's Section - Municipal Clerk - Confidential Secretary - Jo-Anne H Karla K - Sandra Belley The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. December 18, 2000 Date DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 3 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: December 18, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR That the Municipal Clerk be authorized to sign and seal DP/66100 respecting the property located at 23793-128th Crescent. (to construct 3 additions on an existing single family residential dwelling located within 50 metres of the Al ZED 'ver) "Al Hogarth" C DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO: - Chief Administrative Officer - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP - Fire Chief - Dir - Corporate Support - Dir - Finance Chief Infonnation Officer - Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws - Municipal Engineer - Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering - Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services Dir - Parks & Facilities Clerk's Section - Municipal Clerk - Confidential Secretary - Jo-Anne H Karla K - Sandra Belley The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation andlor such action as may be required by your Department. December 18, 2000 Date DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 4 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: December 18, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR That third reading granted on September 12, 2000 to Maple Ridge Tree Protection By-law No. 5896-2000 be rescinded; and That Maple Ridge Tree Protection By-law No. 5896-2000 be amended as recommended in the report entitled "Public Review of Maple Ridge Tree Protection By-law No. 5896-2000" dated November 27, 2000; and further That Maple Ridge Tree Protection By-law No. 5896-2000 as amended be read a third time. (to amend the by-law based on comments received from stakeholders) "AlHogarth" RIED DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO: Chief Administrative Officer - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP Fire Chief Dir - Corporate Support - Dir - Finance - Chief Information Officer - Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development_________________________________________________ Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws - Municipal Engineer - Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering - Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services - Dir - Parks & Facilities Clerk's Section - - Municipal Clerk - Confidential Secretary - Jo-Anne H Karla K - Sandra Belley The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. December 18, 2000 Date CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE NOTICE OF SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING Please be advised that a Special Council Meeting has been called pursuant to Section 223 of the Local Government Act, as follows: DATE: December 18, 2000 HOUR: Immediately following Committee of the Whole PLACE: Council Chamber, Municipal Hall A GENDA Downtown Core Project - Telecommunication Equipment and Wiring Update Staff report dated December 13, 2000 submitting information on the telecommunication needs of the new core facility and estimated costs. Downtown Core Project - Office Systems Tender Staff report dated December 13, 2000 recommending that the District enter into a contractual agreement with Teknion Furniture Systems Limited to supply office furnishings. DP/66/00 - 23793 - 128th Crescent, Construction of Additions Staff report dated November 30, 2000 recommending that a development permit be issued - for construction of three additions to an existing single family dwelling. Maple Ridge Tree Protection By-law No. 5896-2000 Staff report dated November 27, 2000 recommending, amendments be made to the subject by-law prior to final adoption. Special Council Meeting Agenda December 18, 2000 Page 2 Adjournment Dated this 13th day of December, 2000 I Terry Fryer Li Municipal Clerk