Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-04-02 Workshop Agenda and Reports.pdfCity of Maple Ridge COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA April 2, 2019 2:30PMOR Immediately following the 1:30 PM Committee of the Whole Meeting Blaney Room, 1st Floor, City Hall The purpose of the Council Workshop is to review and discuss policies and other items of interest to Council. Although resolutions may be passed at this meeting, the intent is to make a consensus decision to send an item to Council for debate and vote or refer the item back to staff for more information or clarification. The meeting is live streamed and recorded by the City of Maple Ridge. 1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES 2.1 Minutes of the March 19, 2019 Council Workshop Meeting 3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL 4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUS/NESS 4.1 2019 Community Engagement Program • Fred Armstrong, Manager of Community Engagement & Relations 4.2 Council Engagement Program Recommendations Staff report dated April 2, 2019 recommending that staff implement a 2019-2022 Council Engagement Program based on Attachment A of the April 2, 2019 report titled "Council Engagement Program Recommendations" and on Council's feedback on these recommendations. 4.3 Update on Maple Ridge Tree Protection and Management Bylaw Staff report dated April 2, 2019 providing information on the Maple Ridge Tree Protection and Management Bylaw. Council Workshop Agenda April 2, 2019 Page 2 of 2 4.4 Maple Ridge -Pitt Meadows Home Show Society Request for Additional Electrical Kiosks at the Albion Fairgrounds Staff report dated April 2, 2019 recommending that the attachment to the April 2, 2019 Council Workshop report titled "Maple Ridge -Pitt Meadows Home Show Society Request for Additional Electrical Kiosks at the Albion Fairgrounds" be forwarded to the next Council meeting. 5. CORRESPONDENCE 5.1 Upcoming Events By Invitation to Mayor and Council: Wednesday, April 3 4:00 -7:00 pm Thursday, April 4 5:30 -6:30 pm Thursday, April 4 7:00 -9:00 pm Friday, April 5 6:00 -10:00 pm Saturday, April 6 12:00 -1:00 pm Sunday, April 7 09:00 -11:00 am Tuesday, April 9 1:00 -3:00 pm Tsawwassen First Nation Agreement 10th Anniversary The Tsawwassen Longhouse Golden Ears Field Grand Opening 23125 116 Avenue, Maple Ridge AAC: Let's Get Farming, Maple Ridge Agricultural Advisory Committee Maple Ridge Council Chambers Golden Ears Community 4H Club Regional Speech Night Maple Ridge Council Chambers Ridge Meadows Minor Baseball Association Opening Day Ceremony Field #1 -Pitt Meadows Athletic Park National Volunteer Week -Breakfast Boston Pizza, #510 -19800 Lougheed Hwy Maple Ridge Seniors Activity Centre Re-Opening Celebration 12150 224 Street General Community Events: Saturday, April 6 11:00 am -1:00 pm Rock Ridge Clean Up Event Deer Fern Park -13406 236 Street, Maple Ridge 6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL 7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT 8. ~URNMENT Checked ~Date: fvb.ca._ef lC, 2.0 Minutes 2.0 City of Maple Ridge COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES March 19, 2019 The Minutes of the City Council Workshop held on March 19, 2019 at 3:05 p.m. in the Blaney Room of City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia for the purpose of transacting regular City business. PRESENT Appointed Staff Elected Officials K. Swift, Acting Chief Administrative Officer Mayor M. Morden Councillor J. Dueck Councillor Duncan Councillor C. Meadus Councillor G. Robson Councillor R. Svendsen Councillor A. Yousef F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works and Development Services D. Boag, Acting General Manager Parks, Recreation & Culture L. Benson, Director of Corporate Administration Other Staff as Required C. Nolan, Corporate Controller C. Carter, Director of Planning D. Pollock, Municipal Engineer M. Canning, Manager of Infrastructure Development R. Stott, Environmental Planner 2, Development and Environmental Services Note: These Minutes are posted on the City Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca 1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA R/2019-165 It was moved and seconded That the March 19, 2019 Council Workshop agenda be approved as circulated. CARRIED 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES 2.1 Minutes of the March 5, 2019 and March 12, 2019 Council Workshop Meetings R/2019-166 It was moved and seconded That the minutes of the March 5, 2019 and March 12, 2019 Council Workshop Meetings be adopted. CARRIED Council Workshop Minutes March 19, 2019 Page 2 of 4 3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL -Nil 4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUS/NESS 4.1 Council Strategic Plan 2019-2022 and Council Workplan Matrix -March 19, 2019 Staff report dated March 19, 2019 recommending that the "City of Maple Ridge Strategic Plan 2019-2022" and the "Council Workplan Matrix -March 19, 2019" be forwarded to the April 9, 2019 Council Meeting for final consideration. The Director of Corporate Administration introduced the item and the Director of Planning provided clarity on the Zoning Bylaw item on the Council Workplan Matrix. R/2019-167 It was moved and seconded That the "City of Maple Ridge Strategic Plan 2019-2022" and the "Council Workplan Matrix -March 19, 2019" be forwarded to the April 9, 2019 Council Meeting for final consideration. CARRIED 4.2 Single Family Residential Building Permit Frontage Improvements Policy Staff report dated March 19, 2019 recommending that the "Single Family Residential Building Permit Frontage Improvements Policy" be supported and forwarded to a subsequent Council meeting for consideration and adoption. The Manager of Infrastructure Development gave a PowerPoint Presentation including the following information: • Background Context • Urban Frontage Improvements -Typical Urban Frontage Improvements • Rural Frontage Improvements -Typical Rural Frontage Improvements • Current Practice • Proposed Policy • Desired Outcome The Municipal Engineer answered Council questions. R/2019-168 It was moved and seconded That the "Single Family Residential Building Permit Frontage Improvements Policy" be supported and forwarded to a subsequent Council meeting for consideration and adoption. CARRIED Council Workshop Minutes March 19, 2019 Page 3 of 4 4.3 Tree Appeal Process -Liability Reduction Findings for Tree Permit Appeal -12238 Creston Street Staff report dated March 19, 2019 recommending that the decision of the Manager of Development and Environmental Services to deny a Tree cutting permit at 12238 Creston Street be upheld or that staff be directed to issue the Tree cutting permit for 12238 Creston Street subject to the recommendation outlined in the Arborist report dated January 21, 2019. R/2019-169 It was moved and seconded That the decision of the Manager of Development and Environmental Services to deny a Tree cutting permit at 12238 Creston Street be upheld. DEFEATED Councillors Dueck, Meadus, Robson, Yousef and Mayor Morden -OPPOSED R/2019-169 It was moved and seconded That Staff be directed to issue the Tree cutting permit for 12238 Creston Street, subject to the recommendation outlined in the Arborist report dated January 21, 2019. CARRIED Councillor Duncan and Councillor Svendsen -OPPOSED 5. CORRESPONDENCE -Nil 5.1 Upcoming Events By Invitation to Mayor and Council: Saturday, March 23 2019 Maple Ridge Festival of BC Film 6:00 -7:00 pm The ACT Arts Centre Lobby General Community Events Saturday, March 23 7:00 -8:30 pm Saturday, March 23 8:45 -10: 15 pm Sunday, March 24 11:00 am -12:00 pm Maple Ridge Festival of BC Film -Haida Gwaii: On the Edge of the World The ACT Arts Centre Maple Ridge Festival of BC Film -Maker of Monsters: The Extraordinary Life of Beau Dick The ACT Arts Centre Cyber School Film Fest The ACT Arts Centre l r Council Workshop Minutes March 19, 2019 Page 4 of 4 Sunday, March 24 2:00 -3: 30 pm Sunday, March 24 4:00 -5:30 pm Maple Ridge Festival of BC Film -Rehearsal The ACT Arts Centre Maple Ridge Festival of BC Film -Meditation Parks The ACT Arts Centre 6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL 6.1 LMLGA Resolutions Councillor Duncan proposed striking a committee to forward resolutions for consideration to LMLGA. Staff advised that the deadline for submissions had passed but that an extension was given to March 21, 2019. The Mayor stated that it would be unreasonable to refer the matter back to staff at this point in time given the deadline for submissions was two days away. 7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT-Nil 8. ADJOURNMENT -3:51 p.m. M. Morden, Mayor Certified Correct L. Benson, Corporate Officer ~---City of Maple Ridge mapleridge.ca TO: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council MEETING DATE: FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: April 2, 2019 2178660 Workshop SUBJECT: Council Engagement Program Recommendations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Further to the April 2, 2019 presentation on the 2019 Community Engagement Program outlining three streams for community engagement, this report contains recommendations for the Council Engagement stream to support the development of a 2019-2022 Council Engagement Program (CEP). At present, most Council-community interactions occur through formal work at Council meetings, Committees and Commissions of Council, and through attendance at community events. The goal of the CEP is to take a more deliberate approach to creating opportunities for Council-community interactions where members of the public feel comfortable to share their thoughts, feelings, and expressing suggestions to Council Members directly in a relaxed and conversational way. By taking advantage of existing community events and celebrations and using the capacity of our social media and web assets, we can create expanded and enhanced opportunities for Council to engage with all citizens, including those whose voices may not otherwise have been heard, to learn about the issues and concerns that may be specific to their own circumstances or neighbourhood. RECOMMENDATION: That staff implement a 2019-2022 Council Engagement Program based on the recommendations outlined in Attachment A of the April 2, 2019 report titled "Council Engagement Program Recommendations", and Council's feedback on these recommendations at the April 2, 2019 Council Workshop Meeting. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The goal of the CEP is to provide Council with meaningful opportunities to interact with and hear from residents from all areas of the community. The CEP recommendations outlined in Attachment A include a face to face component associated with community events and activities tailored to reach a variety of demographics and geographic areas in our community. This component seeks to align with various existing City and community run events within a variety of areas including sport, art, cultural, volunteer and economic sectors. Also included is a digital engagement component that will connect Council to the public through the City's social media and web assets in a more comprehensive way. b) Desired Outcome: The desired outcome is to facilitate increased Council community interaction so that citizens have enhanced opportunities to engage with Council on matters that are important to them. Doc# 2178660 Page 1 of 2 4.2 c) Strategic Alignment: The CEP strongly aligns with Council's 2019 -2022 Strategic Plan, particularly with regard to Community Pride & Spirit and Community Safety. The CEP will engage the public in positive activities as participants and as volunteers, enhance the vibrancy of the community and ensure that citizens feel safe and welcome to engage with the City. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: Community engagement is a fundamental aspect of local governance. Increasing opportunities for members of the public to engage directly with Council will support citizens in feeling welcome, valued and heard, and help the City to better understand and address the needs and desires of our community. e) Interdepartmental Implications: The CEP will be led by the Community Relations & Engagement Department that will work with various other departments to collaborate on events and initiatives as outlined in Attachment A. f) Business Plan/Financial Implications: The Community Relations & Engagement Department has $10,000 available to allocate to the execution of the CEP. Many of the recommendations are associated with other community events which enables the City to obtain greater value for our financial investment and amplify events happening in our community. Attachment A outlines the financial investment required to ensure that each of the events achieve the desired outcome of providing Council with increased opportunities for meaningful interaction with citizens. CONCLUSION: Local government is the most accessible level of government to the public, and the City has already taken significant steps to further enhance our level of openness through other projects such as the Open Government Portal. The CEP is an opportunity to increase the accessibility of the City by providing citizens with direct access to their elected officials, giving voice to their issues and creating a strong and engaged community. Reviewed by: Fred Armstrong Manager of Community Relations & Engagement ~v Reviewed by: Danielle Pope Director of Recreation & Community Engagement Approved by: Concurrence: Kelly Swift, M Acting Chief Administra 1ve Officer Attachments: (A) Council Engagement Program Recommendations Doc # 2178660 Page 2 of 2 Attachment A: Council Engagement Program Recommendations Face-to-face Interaction Program Neighbourhood Focus Events Event Title & Description Timing Target Audience Blaney Hamlet Park Opening Sunday, Silver Valley Accompany our ribbon cutting protocols with a May 12 Neighbourhood two hour Mothers Day themed pancake breakfast event for Council members to interact with the neighbourhood. Hammond Neighbourhood Event Early August Hammond A two hour Free Family Swim with hot dog BBQ Neighbourhood organized in conjunction with the Hammond Neighbours Facebook group. Cottonwood Neighbourhood Event Mid to Late Cottonwood A two hour event hosted in conjunction with the August Neighbourhood Maple Ridge Fire Department Hot August Nights. Council would provide frozen treats and visit with neighbourhood families. Demographic Focus Events Event Title & Description Timing Target Audience Youth Event October Youth An informal pizza night to coincide with the anniversary of the Greg Moore Youth Centre where Council can sit and talk with youth about their thoughts and issues. Seniors Event June Seniors A special 'Seniors Tea' during Seniors Week where Mayor Morden would make a presentation and Council members would meet socially with Seniors. Food Bank Volunteer Appreciation Mid to Late Volunteers A two hour event where Council would meet and August enjoy snacks with people who are volunteering at the Friends In Need Food Bank. Cultural Round Table Event Late October, Volunteers A two hour event where Council would meet early volunteers who are involved with the Arts and November Culture community in Maple Ridge. Estimated Budget $1500 $1500 $1000 Estimated Budget $1500 $2000 $1500 $1500 Community Event Focus Events Event Title & Description Timing Target Estimated Audience Budget Home Show First General public $2000 plus The City would host a booth throughout the three Weekend in $5000 from day event with information about City programs, May Economic with representatives of City Council and senior Development staff. Time investment of 21 hours, shared Department among Council members, to host the booth. Senior staff will also be scheduled as City ambassadors. Haney Farmers MarkeVPublic Works Week Late May General public $2000 A four hour event held in 'south park' in Memorial Peace Park with equipment and displays representing the services offered by the City. Treats would be available for the public and there would be a social gathering place for Council Members to interact with the public. Canada Day Pancake Breakfast July 1 General public $2000 A two hour event where Council Members can meet with members of the public prior to the formal protocol event that starts the Canada Day celebrations. The event would be hosted in the plaza between City Hall and the Ridge Meadows RCMP detachment. Digital Engagement Program Council Introductory Videos Council videos featuring interviews with members of Council to provide the community with an opportunity to get to know your background, passions and why you ran for office. These would supplement Council photos and biographies on the City website. No incremental budget. Council Public Service Announcements/Videos Short public service announcement videos highlighting areas that Council Members have a strong passion and expertise on covering various civic issues. For example, one member of Council may do a series of short videos on fire safety tips, another Council member on emergency preparedness, and another on the importance of getting your dog license. The goal is to engage Council in the presentation of key messages that the City needs to communicate. These types of videos have a greater impact when delivered by people who have clear passion on the issues. From Christmas greetings to a reminder to shovel your sidewalks after a snow storm, there are many opportunities to build a repository of short videos we can use to populate our social media channels. Community Event Focus Events Event Title & Description Timing Target Estimated Audience Budget Home Show First General public $7000 The City would host a booth throughout the Weekend in three day event with information about City May programs, with representatives of City Council and senior staff. Time investment of 21 hours, shared among Council members, to host the booth. Senior staff will also be scheduled as City ambassadors. Haney Farmers MarkeVPublic Works Week Late May General public $2000 A four hour event held in 'south park' in Memorial Peace Park with equipment and displays representing the services offered by the City. Treats would be available for the public and there would be a social gathering place for Council Members to interact with the public. Canada Day Pancake Breakfast July 1 General public $2000 A two hour event where Council Members can meet with members of the public prior to the formal protocol event that starts the Canada Day celebrations. The event would be hosted in the plaza between City Hall and the Ridge Meadows RCMP detachment. Digital Engagement Program Council Introductory Videos Council videos featuring interviews with members of Council to provide the community with an opportunity to get to know your background, passions and why you ran for office. These would supplement Council photos and biographies on the City website. No incremental budget. Council Public Service Announcements/Videos Short public service announcement videos highlighting areas that Council Members have a strong passion and expertise on covering various civic issues. For example, one member of Council may do a series of short videos on fire safety tips, another Council member on emergency preparedness, and another on the importance of getting your dog license. The goal is to engage Council in the presentation of key messages that the City needs to communicate. These types of videos have a greater impact when delivered by people who have clear passion on the issues. From Christmas greetings to a reminder to shovel your sidewalks after a snow No incremental budget. Council Social Media Support Staff will work with each member of Council to identify specific days and times when staff can create social media post on key items that you are involved in as you carry out your duties on Council. This will allow citizens to get a sense of the hours you invest in representing our community and a better understanding of the type of work you are involved in. No incremental budget. 1·~·-mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge TO: FROM: His Worship Mayor Mike Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer MEETING DATE: April 2, 2019 FILE NO: MEETING: Council Workshop SUBJECT: Update on Maple Ridge Tree Protection and Management Bylaw EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the December 11, 2018 Council Workshop, Council directed: "that staff report back to Council with further information, options, and costs of surveying past permit applicants". The current Tree Protection and Management Bylaw (Tree Bylaw) was adopted on January 12, 2016. The Tree Bylaw was prepared following a lengthy consultation process. Appended to this report are some of the background reports and feedback provided on the Tree Bylaw before and after its implementation: This report also includes a breakdown of statistics over the past several years with respect to tree cutting permits, numbers of trees, permit denials, and potential cost estimates for surveying applicants. RECOMMENDATION: For Information. DISCUSSION: 1. BACKGROUND a) Summary of previous consultation process for the adoption and implementation of the Tree Protection & Management Bylaw 2016/2017 The Tree Bylaw review process commenced in early 2015 through ongoing consultation with both professional stakeholder groups and with citizens. The request for a Tree Bylaw review came from a two year municipal Environmental Management Strategy consultation process. It was identified through the independent consultant report and the community feedback that a review and update to the Tree Bylaw was a high priority for the community. PREVIOUS CONSULTATION PROCESS The following consultation process was endorsed by Council on February 2, 2015 as part of the previous Tree Management Bylaw review to encourage community input, transparency, and provide citizens with opportunities for feedback: Table 1. Tree Management Bylaw Process & Timelines Step I -Council Endorse Review Process & Amendments to current Bylaw No. Feb.2,2015 5896-2000 • Council to endorse the Tree Protection and Management Bylaw ,/ review/consultation process; Step II -Focus Group Feedback -proposed "draft" Tree Management Bylaw to be Late Feb. circulated to local professional tree experts including arborists, foresters, woodlot March managers, developers and development consultants, environmental professionals, and environmental stewardship groups. ,/ Step Ill -Open House -consultation with general public & neighbourhood groups April 2015 On Line Questionnaire with almost 300 responses from community ,/ including written comments that were provided to Council with reports Step IV -Consultation Update to Council -provide Council with opportunity to June to hear about stakeholder feedback with reports and presentation including possible Sept. 2015 revisions to Tree Protection and Management Bylaw. ,/ ~ Additional consultation step added Sept. 15-Oct 5, 2015. ~ Final update to Council at Workshop Nov. 16, 2015 Step V -Final Consideration of Tree Protection and Management Dec 8, Bylaw No. 7133-2015 for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Reading 2015 Step VI -Final Adoption Jan 2016 At least a full year of ongoing consultation was carried out as part of the previous Tree Bylaw review process prior to adoption with on line questionnaires, community workshops, open house events, and professional stakeholder workshops. Council were updated during each phase of the Tree Bylaw review. (Appendix B, C, and D) An additional one year update follow up review of the Tree Bylaw and update report/ presentation was also provided to Council in November 2017. (Appendix E) Page 2 of 5 t I I I b) Key Tree Permit stakeholders related to Tree Protection & Management Bylaw development The Tree Bylaw was developed and amended with input from the following groups. 1. Development industry (UDI developers, local developers, professional development consultants/environmental consultants). 2. Tree experts including professional foresters, arborists, and tree fellers/contractors 3. Urban Forestry professionals (UBC Research ForestjBCIT Woodlot & Blue Mountain Woodlot) 4. Tree Permit applicants -small scale removal and large scale clearing applicants, ALR applicants, and hazard tree removal applicants 5. Tree permit and tree removal complainants 6. Municipal Advisory Committees -Env. EAC members, Agriculture AAC, Heritage HAC, Economic and Tourism Advisory Committee. 7. Tree Professionals from other local governments 8. Representatives from other municipal departments (Parks, Operations, Engineering, Building Dept., Economic Development, Emergency Services) c) Overview of the Tree Bylaw Appendix A provides an overview of the differences between the previous Tree Bylaw and the current Tree Bylaw. Essentially, the current Tree Bylaw was intended to assist community stakeholders with the following objectives based on feedback and concerns provided to the City through the previous consultation process: • Ensure safe, responsible tree cutting regulations and practices for both urban and rural lands to protect citizens and public/private property both on site and off site from negative impacts and risks associated with large scale clearing as well as irresponsible and unsupervised tree cutting practices; • Promote retention of a portion of the significant healthy size trees on site where possible on new developments to retain form and character of neighborhoods; to decrease the risk of impacts such as drainage concerns, blowdown, and impacts to property values; and to continue to provide economic, social, and ecological benefits to the community. • Provide appropriate tree management mitigation measures on site and supervision during construction activity or clearing activity to avoid unnecessary damage to protected areas, features, and adjacent properties. • Assist citizens, property owners, and tax payers by retaining a minimum tree canopy cover ratio on site where possible to help offset costs to the larger community and taxpayers or else provide replanting opportunities elsewhere in the community • Create a level playing field for tree experts -foresters, arborists, and tree felling contractors to help encourage responsible tree management and cutting practices. • Develop appropriate exemptions and options for tree permit applicants through the tree permit process to promote a cost effective, efficient, and reasonable Bylaw. In the past, public feedback has stressed the importance of staff continuing to carry out site visits to assist with citizen concerns, risk management issues, timing, and to help deal with tree management technical questions that arise. This outreach initiative by the municipal arborist has also helped to decrease the number of complaints about irresponsible tree cutting practices on private lots from concerned neighbours and citizens. It has also cut down the amount of time and costs spent in the field by Staff with follow up compliance, restoration, and enforcement visits. Page 3 of 5 2. GENERAL TRENDS AND STATISTICS The statistics provide an overall picture and summary of recent trends over the past three years. Tree Permit Stats 2016 2017 2018 Total# of Permit Applications 485 385 320 Total# of Permit Trees Cut 1800 3051 2231 Total# of Permit Trees Replaced 978 1357 {44%) 694 (31%) Total# Significant Trees Cut 157 442 337 Permit Trees Denied on Record 96 12 {3%) 8 {2.5%) Total # of Appeals 1 0 1 Comparison of Tree Permit Fees 2015/2016 2016 2017 2018 $26,512 Tree Permit fees $95,000 Tree Permit fees $108,000 $70,625 $0 -No tree replacement fund $65,000 City Green Fund $145,000 $6,750 Previous to the 2016 Tree Protection and Management Bylaw, there was no requirement for developers, builders, residents in rural areas, or homeowners in urban areas with smaller properties to go through any kind of tree permit process with the City. Less than a dozen applications were received over a two year period. Based on Tree Bylaw stats gathered over the past several years, over 1000 applicants have applied for tree permits since 2016. 3. COSTS OF SURVEYING Pursuant to Council direction, staff were asked to include information on the cost of surveying past permit applicants. Cost estimates are provided as follows: Staff led survey: This would include staff preparing a draft questionnaire for Council's review, followed by a mail-out to permit applicants. The survey responses would be made available to Council, with the results being used to inform whether changes to the Tree Bylaw are warranted. The estimate for this approach is $1500, excluding staff time. Consultant Led Survey: This would include the preparation of a questionnaire and mail-out prepared by a third party professional, and a report to Council. The survey responses and consultant recommendation would be presented to Council, with the results being used to inform whether changes to the Tree Bylaw are warranted. It is estimated that the costs would range from approximately $10,000 to $15,000. Funding for this project is not available in the Planning Department budget. Page 4 of 5 I I 4. RECOMMENDATIONS Pursuant to Council direction, this report has been prepared to provide additional information of the Tree Protection and Management Bylaw, including an overview of the options and costs associated with survey of current and past tree permit applicants. "Original signed by Rod Stott" Prepared by: Rodney Stott, Environmental Planner "Original signed by Christine Carter" Reviewed by: Christine Carter, M.PL., MCIP, RPP Director of Planning "Original signed by Frank Quinn" Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services "Original signed by Kelly Swift" Concurrence: Kelly Swift, MBA Acting Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A -comparison table of previous and current Tree Protection & Mgmt. Bylaw Appendix B -June 1, 2015 Consultation Update Report -Community Questionnaire on Tree Bylaw Appendix C -Nov. 16 2015 Community Stakeholder Group and Public Consultation Feedback Report Appendix D -Dec. 7 2015 Overview of the Tree Bylaw Consultation Process and Draft Bylaw Framework Appendix E -Nov. 2017 Tree Bylaw One Year Update report with amendment recommendations Page 5 of 5 APPENDIX A TABLE 2. Summary of Key Tree Protection and Management Bylaw Changes Bylaw Section Application EJcemptions Permit Requirements Replacements Tree Protection Hazardous Trees Tree Management Plan Previous Bylaw Application Urban Area only on lots larger than > 1 acre in size; Watercourse areas up to 15m; Steep slopes over 30%. First 3 tree removals on urban lots require no tree permit; Exemptions urban lots< 1 acre; Exemptions for rural lots; Exemptions for development; No criteria to refuse permit; No qualifications required for safety and knowledge of work Only required if violation i.e. removals in a watercourse setback or on steep slopes or unpermitted removals No requirements to protect or retain trees on development sites or non-development sites; Heritage protection for trees on Shady Lane road ROW; No requirements to manage for hazard trees on development sites or consider impacts to adjacent property. No requirements Tree Protection & Mgmt Bylaw Trees> 20 cm dbh; Both urban and rural lands; Both development and non-development lands except where exemptions apply All tree removals require a permit except where exemptions apply: ~ trees <20cm dbh width; ~ hazard, dead or dying trees; ~ trees within 2 m of structures; ~ hedges, alders & cottonwoods with some parameters ~ up to 10 permit trees/yr on rural lots if >0.5ha, trees < 70cm, and lot must meet 30% canopy cover. Circumstances listed under which tree cutting permit will be issued or denied; Qualifications for work to be performed Replacements required on all sites, if less than 16 trees per acre (or equivalent) remain on parcel; Cash in lieu option if unable to accommodate replacements; Security Deposits for large scale cutting; ~ Protection criteria for Significant Trees > 70 cm DBH where possible; ~ Heritage Trees on Shady Lane ROW; ~ Retention Plans for trees along the perimeter of lots and low impact development requirements; ~ Protection requirements to ensure temporary protection of trees from damage during construction period; ~ Protection areas required for developers with re-planting zones. ~ Requirement for professional hazard tree assessments to be completed before and after development activity completed; ~ Requirements to consider impacts including wind firm edges. Requirement for developers, builders and large scale clearing applicants to consider how to mitigate the impacts of tree cutting both on site & off site; Tree retention plan and Tree Replacement plans are required; Requirements for site supervisor, coordination by Forester or Arborist. TO: APPENDIX 8 City of Maple Ridge Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read and Members of Council MEETING DATE: June 1, 2015 FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop SUBJECT: Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw Consultation Update Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the February 2, 2015 Council Workshop, Council endorsed a consultation process for proposed Tree Management Bylaw (No. 7133-2015) to generate feedback from the community and ensure a transparent process for the proposed Tree Management Bylaw. The consultation process included: • A Public Open House held on April 22, 2015 • Written and verbal feedback from tree experts that work in the community, development consultants, and local environmental stewardship groups; • Feedback from the public to staff through phone conversations, front counter inquiries, emails and from ongoing tree permit application site visits; and • An on-line questionnaire about the proposed Tree Management Bylaw that was available to the public for six weeks on the City's website and at the front counter. This report includes an update on the consultation process including a summary of feedback and comments received from the following: 1. The Tree Bylaw questionnaires (639 returned) to the City of Maple Ridge; 2. Tree experts and technical experts and various stakeholders, (27 written comments); 3. Public Open House for the proposed Tree Management Bylaw which had approximately 140 recorded attendees; and 4. Over 80 permit applications and site visits with interim tree bylaw permit applicants over past several months, in addition to emails, and phone calls from citizens. The purpose of this report is to present the outcomes of the open house and feedback from the questionnaires, as well as provide information on the next steps in the process. Also included in the report is a summary of some of the recommended changes to the proposed Bylaw to address the feedback received. RECOMMENDATION: That the Tree Management Bylaw Consultation Update Report dated June 1, 2015 be received for information. Page 1 of 15 BACKGROUND: Based on feedback from the general public and studies completed by consultants in the past, there have been concerns in Maple Ridge about tree clearing practices, impacts from clearcutting and large scale clearing on neighborhoods, and cumulative losses of tree canopy cover over time that is changing the character of Maple Ridge. Furthermore, some claim the impacts from tree removal are creating unnecessary risks, disturbances, and costs to adjacent land owners and to the City of Maple Ridge. Through extensive consultation during the Environmental Management Strategy for Maple Ridge carried out in 2013/14, it was identified that tree protection and management was a high priority and short term action item in the community. In November 2014 Council directed staff to prepare a new Tree Management Bylaw and a consultation process with the community. An outline of the Tree Bylaw consultation process was presented and endorsed by Council on February 2, 2015. The Resolution was that the Tree Management Bylaw Review process outlined in the staff report entitled "Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw Process Report" dated Feb. 2 2015 be endorsed. The purpose of the consultation process was to provide both stakeholders and the public with an opportunity to review the proposed Tree Management Bylaw. There was one update to Council included in the process after the Public Open House, Focus Group feedback, and questionnaire had been completed. The first three steps have been completed. Step Four in process. The following process was endorsed by Council: Table 1. Tree Management Bylaw Process & Timelines Step I -Council Endorse Review Process & Amendments to current Bylaw 5896-2000 Feb.2,2015 • Council to endorse the Tree Management Bylaw review/consultation process; • Consideration and granting of 1st, 2nd, 3rd reading of Tree Protection Amending complete Bylaw 7134-2015 at Workshop. Step II -Focus Group Feedback -proposed "draft" Tree Management Bylaw to be Late Feb. circulated to local professional tree experts including arborists, foresters, woodlot March managers, development consultants, environmental professionals, and environmental complete stewardship groups. Step Ill -Open House -consultation with general public & neighbourhood groups March/ April 2015 complete Step IV -Consultation Update to Council -provide feedback on what we heard to June 1, Council with presentation of Draft Tree Management Bylaw for consideration. 2015 Step V -Council Consideration of Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 Early for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Reading and Final Adoption Summer 2015 Public Notification for Open House Event It was proposed that various notifications were going to be used to assist in the consultation awareness initiative including use of written invitations, email lists, social media, front counter handouts, and information posted on the municipal website to engage the community and facilitate ongoing dialogue throughout the planning process. The intent was to increase the effectiveness and Page 2 of 15 I efficiency of public engagement that will help strengthen the relationship between the municipality and the community. All of these forms of notification were utilized during the consultation process. Notification for the public open house was distributed in the following ways: a) Municipal media, such as Maple Ridge website notice boards, Facebook, e-newsletter, and in "Maple Ridge This Month" in local newspaper; b) News bulletin distribution; c) Community Events; d) Newspaper advertisements; and e) Emails to residents. In addition to the above, word-of-mouth was also used as a way to help make people aware of the event and distribution of emails to community stakeholder groups through the Social Planning Neighborhood Development Coordinator. TREE BYLAW CONSULTATION PROCESS The consultation process in this report focuses on feedback from the community on the proposed Tree Management Bylaw 7133-2015 through the various consultation mechanisms. A brief breakdown of the consultation mechanisms is provided with this report. 1. Background and supporting information. A copy of the previous presentations provided to Council, staff reports on the Tree Bylaw public process, and a copy of the proposed Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 was available to the public for review both on line through the municipal website, through email distribution upon request, and/or a hard copy of these resources was available at the City hall front counter as well as at the Open House. There are five key components to the proposed Tree Management Bylaw: 1. Application and scope of the Tree Management Bylaw 2. Tree Protection Measures 3. Tree Management requirements 4. Tree Replacement requirements 5. Exemptions and Fees 2. Tree Experts and Technical Stakeholders Findings A copy of the proposed Tree Management Bylaw was forwarded to approximately 40 different professionals associated with tree management and/or development activity in the community for their feedback. This included tree experts such as foresters, arborists, and tree fellers as well as development consultants, and stewardship groups. Approximately 25 questionnaires were returned along with some emails providing feedback on the proposed bylaw. A summary of their comments and suggestions is provided in Appendix B. In addition, City of Maple Ridge staff met with tree professionals from various municipal governments across the Lower Mainland on a number of occasions to discuss and review the proposed Maple Ridge Tree bylaw. A copy of the comparative review on tree bylaws within the Lower Mainland was provided to Council with the Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw Process Report dated February 2 2015 as part of the appendices. Page 3 of 15 Some of the more prevalent comments and recommendations by these tree experts include: General Comments • Size: 10 cm dbh is too small, too difficult to administer. 20 cm is more reasonable. • Significant trees: "shocked that large significant trees carry no weight. Maple Ridge has lost many of its significant trees in recent years. City should be making an attempt to identify what is left and ensure the bylaw considers these trees. Developers should be given some kind of incentive to design around the high value trees and builder should be required to work around them as well"; • Protection measures: "Important to have protection measures as part of a Tree Bylaw, to ensure retained trees on development sites are properly protected during construction." Development related permits • Tree Management Plans. "more stringent measures are needed to force developers to give tree retention much consideration before leveling and clear cutting a site." A pre-development process to protect and retain is crucial to smart development. • Permit Fees. Fees for development tree applications are too low and these fees are used in other cities to employ qualified tree experts and staff persons needed to administer the bylaws. • Education and Enforcement. Equal amounts of education and enforcement is necessary for the tree bylaw. "Contractors need to understand clearly the reasons for root protection, and the hazards to trees and people if they do not follow the setbacks." Having an education brochure or program as part of this will reduce the amount of resistance, and also provide City staff with the answers when they are fielding questions and complaints. 3. Public Open House Feedback On April 22, 2015 the City of Maple Ridge had a Public Open House for the proposed Tree Management Bylaw and nearly 140 persons signed in. The City raised awareness in the community about the event through multiple newspaper advertisements, through social media, advertisements on the municipal website, handouts, emails, and through word of mouth to all tree permit applicants and inquiries related to the tree bylaw. Participants at the Public Open House were also provided with hard copies of the questionnaire which they could hand in and comments were also recorded by staff persons attending the event. The event was held at the City Hall and lasted from 4:30pm to 8:30pm. There were a number of stations with display boards and staff persons to assist with questions. A powerpoint presentation was also available for review. There were many residents in attendance that were concerned with the application of the Tree Bylaw to the rural areas in that it might limit their ability to continue with routine maintenance and firewood collection especially for larger wooded parcels. Based on feedback from the hundreds of questionnaires, technical discussion groups, and feedback from the tree permit applicants, staff provided some preliminary recommendations for changes to the proposed tree management bylaw at the Open House for consideration. These proposed changes are also included in this report for Council's consideration and a more detailed summary of recommended changes to the Tree Bylaw can be found under Appendix D of this report. Page 4 of 15 For the Public Open House, feedback and dialogue was encouraged in the following areas: 1. Scope of the proposed Tree Management Bylaw 2. Protection measures 3. Management or mitigation measures 4. Replacement requirements 5. Fee structure and exemptions 4. Feedback during Interim Tree Protection Bylaw There was a total of 87 tree permit applications submitted and reviewed under the interim Tree Protection Amendment Bylaw from February 10 2015 until May 20, 2015. This interim bylaw was introduced as a temporary measure during the consultation process for the proposed bylaw to reduce large scale clearing on properties across the municipality and unsafe removal practices. The interim Tree Protection Bylaw removed exemptions and requires that a tree cutting permit be obtained for all tree removal in the City except for certified hazard trees. Permit fees amounted to $15,096 within three and a half months. There were 35 applications in rural areas and 52 applications in urban areas. Not including applications for clearing larger areas, 403 trees were cut during this period. This included 55 hazard trees and 21 Hazard Tree Permits that were issued with no permit fees. Municipal staff were able to assist the vast majority of residents by carrying out site visits, verifying hazard trees and issuing the hazard tree permit without a Certified Tree Risk Assessment being carried out by a qualified arborist for each tree. Two tree risk assessments were completed during this period at the City's request. Staff estimate the number of trees cut down on private lands during this three month period was greater than what was officially recorded based on feedback from tree service companies and observations by staff, but there were only a few complaints or calls made from the public about unpermitted cutting. There are currently three tree enforcement related files in progress. Each applicant was given the opportunity to provide input and send in a questionnaire on the proposed Tree Management Bylaw. Each applicant was also advised they could wait for the upcoming bylaw whereby permit fees would likely be less than what is currently required. Each site was visited by municipal staff to determine how the proposed bylaw might work or where there might be concerns with respect to fair and effective application on the ground. A summary of the statistics and staff observations made during recent Tree Permit applications and site visits under interim Tree Bylaw is found in Appendix C. 5. Questionnaire for the proposed Tree Management Bylaw Time Lines. The Questionnaire began online April 1, 2015 and it closed two weeks after the public open house on May 8, 2015, lasting approximately six weeks in duration. Focus. The Questionnaire focused on the following areas: 1. Scope of the proposed Tree Management Bylaw 2. Protection Measures 3. Management or mitigation measures 4. Replacement requirements 5. Fee structure and Exemptions Page 5 of 15 Results. The success of the public consultation process can be seen in the resulting input from residents. A total of 639 questionnaires were returned to the City which were all included in the final summary and assessment. Approximately 200 questionnaires were returned to the front counter in hard copy and the remaining 450 questionnaires were completed online. The hard copy questionnaires were all converted into a digital format so their responses were included in the final summary and analysis, which was completed through the survey program. Note: This questionnaire is not a survey and it is not statistically valid. For example, there are no controls over the number of questionnaires that could have been submitted by one individual. The intent of the questionnaire is to get an idea of the interest from the community, the general support opinions, or concerns from the community about the proposed Tree Management Bylaw, and the nature of the comments and suggestions. All of the responses and comments received by the City are attached in Appendix A along with a summary of comments and copy of the questionnaire template. Access and Distribution of Questionnaire. The questionnaire was available on the City website in a digital format. It was also available in hard copy format for distribution over the Planning front counter and at the Public Open House. A copy of the questionnaire is attached with Appendix A. The questionnaire was distributed to technical stakeholders in the community including foresters, arborists, tree fellers, woodlot managers, professional development consultants that work in the City of Maple Ridge, to the Metro Vancouver inter-municipal professionals dealing with tree bylaws, and to environmental stewardship groups representing different watersheds in the community such as Kanaka (KEEPS), Alouette River (ARMS) and Grant Hill Watershed (TAPS) which includes Whonnock Creek watershed area. ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS. A total of 639 questionnaires were returned to the City which were all included in the final summary and assessment. Fluid Survey, a software program designed to deal with online surveys and questionnaires was used to collect, process, and analyze all of the information. It provides statisitical analysis and generates reports including organization of comments. An abridged summary of the assessment for the 639 responses and comments is attached with this report. On average, there were approximately over 150 comments for each of the questions within the five sections of the questionnaire. There were eleven questions in total which are included in the report in Appendix A. Responses include a wide range of supporting comments, concerns, and specific suggestions. This report includes a brief quantitative and qualitative summary for the first question in each section of the questionnaire to provide a better sense of the feedback. The more detailed assessment report for the questionnaire in Appendix A provides a more comprehensive statisitical and qualitative breakdown of the comments for each question within the five sections. Page 6 of 15 Section One. Scope of the Proposed Tree Management Bylaw. Do you agree with the scope of the proposed Tree Bylaw? Response Chart Percentage Count Strongly Agree 53.3% 309 Agree 17.8% 103 Neutral 3.1% 18 Disagree 6.2% 36 Strongly Disagree 19.7% 114 Total Responses 580 Responses The majority of respondents from both urban and rural areas (over 70%) agreed or strongly agreed with the scope of the proposed Tree Management Bylaw. However, there were significant concerns about specific elements of the tree bylaw scope that were reflected in the comments. Key Themes Likes • Bylaw that is proposed considers the bigger picture including stronger tree management requirements for new developments and consideration of future tree canopy cover for City. • Much needed bylaw. Learn from other cities that protect, manage and value the services and benefits trees provide. • Trees need to be better protected/managed to retain the natural landscape. Everyone should be responsible and this bylaw is a good start for Maple Ridge. Dislikes • Concerns that urban and rural areas are being treated the same. For example, allow rural land owners to continue to provide modest alterations to their land such as regular firewood collection or routine yard maintenance, especially if they are already heavily treed. • Concerns with the definition of a tree. For example, expand historical size 10cm dbh to something larger and exclude hedges from the bylaw. • Concerns about excessive permit fees, costs associated with possible hazard tree assessments by qualified professionals, and cost of having to hire an arborist to supervise cutting trees for routine removal of dead, dying, nuisance, or hazard trees. Section Two. Protection of Trees. Question 2.1 Do you agree with the proposed protection measures for retention or replacement of trees within 5 metres of property lines, including protection of critical root zones? Response Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Chart Page 7 of 15 Percentage 54.5% 25.4% 4.2% 6.6% 9.2% Total Responses Count 296 138 23 36 50 543 Question 2.2 Do you agree with the proposed incentives for retention of significant trees above what is already regulated on development lands? Response Chart Percentage Count Strongly Agree 55.6% 302 Agree 26.9% 146 Neutral 4.6% 25 Disagree 4.8% 26 Strongly Disagree 8.1% 44 Total Responses 543 Question 2.3 Do you agree with the proposed requirements for tree protection measures for trees that are to be retained on site, including tree protection barriers? Response Chart Percentage Count Strongly Agree 57.5% 313 Agree 25.0% 136 Neutral 5.5% 30 Disagree 4.8% 26 Strongly Disagree 7.2% 39 Total Responses 544 Response Nearly 80% of respondents agreed or highly agreed with the proposed protection measures along property boundary edges in the Tree Management Bylaw. In addition, over 80% agreed with incentives for protection measures and stronger protection measures for trees to be retained on site. Key Themes Likes • Provide greater space within and around development layouts and building lots where possible to promote retention or replacement of trees to encourge green neighborhoods; • The trees in Maple Ridge were very important when considering living here so please develop new building lots, subdivisions and neighborhoods with this in mind. Ensure appropriate requirements to deal with tree preservation with proposed changes to development layouts, drainage, grading, and slope stability impacts; and • More emphasis should be placed on retention requirements along property edges to create windfirm buffer for larger mature or old growth trees on adjacent properties. Dislikes • Concern with lack of flexibility. Need to take into consideration the characteristics of a site and surrounding area when addressing the merits of retention vs. replacement along property boundaries (i.e. available space, condition of remaining trees & risks to nearby structures, right tree right place, are there trees at risk on the adjacent properties or not?); • Concerns with lack of protection for well established, large, healthy groves of trees where possible especially for new development; • Concerns about limited space. Five metre retention or replanting buffer along property edge may be too large (i.e. smaller urban lots, built out areas, or high density zoning). Consider suitable alternatives along property edge instead of trees ( i.e. fencing, hedges, shrubs). Page 8 of 15 r - Section Three. Tree Management Requirements. Question 3.1 Do you agree with the proposal to require Tree Management Plans for new developments and large scale building applications? Response Chart Percentage Count Strongly Agree 59.7% 321 Agree 30.5% 164 Neutral 2.4% 13 Disagree 2.8% 15 Strongly Disagree 4.6% 25 Total Responses 538 Question 3.2 Do you agree with the proposal to require management of impacts associated with large scale clearing or tree removal on 'non-development' sites including fill applications or large scale clearing? Response Chart Percentage Count Strongly Agree 60.8% 327 Agree 26.4% 142 Neutral 4.6% 25 Disagree 2.6% 14 Strongly Disagree 5.6% 30 Total Responses 538 Response. Over 90% agreed that tree management plans were a good idea for development applications and for large scale building applications. Over 80% agreed or strongly agreed that large scale clearing on private lands should require stronger tree management measures proposed in the Bylaw to ensure safe, responsible removal of trees including consideration of adjacent property owners, vulnerable areas, and character of neighborhoods. Key Themes Likes • Every land owner should be responsible for maintaining a minimum amount of their property with some tree coverage including non development related permits and agricultural lands • The size, shape, and location of new developments and building structures, outbuildings, and impervious areas should accommodate retention & management of significant trees on their sites where possible • What many people value most about living in Maple Ridge is the closeness to nature -this needs to be protected and preserved in both urban neighborhoods and rural areas. Everyone should be responsible. Dislikes • Don't want to see large trees replaced with smaller trees. • Will City provide any additional staff to help reduce costs to landowners to assist with hazard tree assessments, appropriate replanting measures, or determine if exemptions apply? • Developers, builders and homeowners will need additional education and outreach to ensure responsible cutting practices both on site as well as to protect adjacent landowners and sensitive protected areas. Page 9 of 15 Section Four. Replacement Tree Requirements. Question 4.1 Do you agree that all tree permits should require replacements if a minimum number of trees (16 trees/acre) are not retained? Response Chart Percentage Count Strongly Agree 33.7% 179 Agree 42.7% 227 Neutral 7.2% 38 Disagree 7.0% 37 Strongly Disagree 9.4% 50 Total Responses 531 Question 4.2 Do you agree with the proposed Tree Replacement requirements for development related applications? Response Chart Percentage Count Strongly Agree 49.3% 262 Agree 33.9% 180 Neutral 4.7% 25 Disagree 5.8% 31 Strongly Disagree 6.2% 33 Total Responses 531 Question 4.3 Do you agree with the proposed Tree Replacement requirements for non-development activity on private property? Response Chart Percentage Count Strongly Agree 48.8% 259 Agree 27.1% 144 Neutral 3.2% 17 Disagree 6.8% 36 Strongly Disagree 14.1% 75 Total Responses 531 Page 10 of 15 Question 4.4 Do you agree with an exemption from Replacement Tree requirements on agricultural zoned lands that are actively being farmed? Response Chart Percentage Count Strongly Agree 9.2% 49 Agree 12.2% 65 Neutral 7.0% 37 Disagree 21.1% 112 Strongly Disagree 50.5% 268 Total Responses 531 Response. For question 4.1 over 75% of residents agree or strongly agree that tree replacement should be required for all tree permits where minimum number of trees are not being retained on site. For question 4.2 there was over 80% agreement for minimum replacement requirements on both development lands. Results were similar for question 4.3 which applies to non-development lands. In question 4.4, over 70% disagreed that agricultural zoned lands should be exempt from proposed replacement tree requirements if they don't meet the minimum retention requirements. Key Themes Likes • Need further clarity around acceptable size/species for replacement especially in urban areas or where parcels and building lots may already be restricted • Consider size, health, and diversity of trees that are being replaced especially replacement values associated with larger healthy mature or old growth trees • Retention of healthy mature or old growth trees should be a priority over replanting or cash in lieu options where possible. Dislikes • Need to retain more trees than 16/acres, 40/hectare as this ratio is low compared to other cities. What is this ratio based on? • The number of required replacement trees is excessive especially for smaller urban lots where a fully mature tree might create hardships for a property owner • Please consider flexible replanting requirements, i.e. allow for right tree in right place in urban and rural areas and consider life cycle of trees, risk factors, and space requirements for homeowners in replacement plans. Section Five. Tree Permit Fees and Exemptions. Question 5.1 Do you agree with the proposed Tree Permit fee structure? Response Chart Percentage Count Strongly Agree 4.3% 23 Agree 9.1% 48 Neutral 6.4% 34 Disagree 20.0% 106 Strongly Disagree 60.1% 318 Total Responses 529 Page 11 of 15 l ~--r Question 5.2 Do you agree with the proposed list of exemptions (no fee required)? Response Chart Percentage Count Strongly Agree 4.9% 26 Agree 11.9% 63 Neutral 6.4% 34 Disagree 17.6% 93 Strongly Disagree 59.2% 313 Total Responses 529 Response. The majority of the concerns with the proposed Tree Management Bylaw fell into section five, which focused on the permit fee structure and exemptions that were being proposed in the Bylaw. Between 80% to 90% of respondents noted they disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposed fee structure and exemptions. There was a significant split in the respondents that disagreed with respect to concerns about insufficient fees for protection of larger trees vs. high cost of fees for rural land owners. Rural land owners generally thought a more reasonable and flexible permit fee structure for non development related tree removal permits was needed. Additional exemptions should be provided for residents from rural areas to allow for routine tree cutting for firewood and maintenance on an annual basis. Key Themes Likes • Developers should pay more for permit fees or for large scale clearing which can contribute towards staff positions to assist with enforcement, education, permit review, and assistance to private property owners with tree issues. Dislikes • Need greater flexibility with respect to exemptions and permit fees for cutting of firewood or routine maintenance especially in rural areas • Fee structure is too permissive and doesn't provide a disincentive for tree removal • Costs should be more reasonable so public will cooperate with the bylaw • It's too easy to have an arborist state that a tree is a hazard tree without City review • City staff person should be provided to assess hazard trees for single family homes • Arborist report for tree risk assessment will cost a lot for homeowners • There are too many exemptions • Private properties should be exempt from permits • Agricultural property should not be exempt from permits because they need to be responsible as well for managing impacts on adjacent properties. A more detailed statistical breakdown of the questionnaire, including a breakdown of responses and comments can be found within the report and in the attachments under Appendix A. A copy of all the comments is also attached with this report in addition to comments and feedback from technical stakeholders, permit applicants, and from the Public Open House held on April 22, 2015. Page 12 of 15 SUMMARY OF TREE BYLAW CONSULTATION RESULTS Overall, there was an exceptional response from the community with 639 questionnaires that were completed and returned to the City. The Public Open House on April 22, 2015 was very well attended with over 140 persons on record which is generally a very high participation rate. In addition there were 87 tree permit applications submitted during the interim tree bylaw period from February 10 up until May 20 2015. Comments from these permit applications were also generated. Staff received feedback from property owners, reviewed each property and application using site visits, and recorded observations about potential opportunities/ challenges for the proposed Tree Management Bylaw. Based on written feedback from emails and the questionnaires that were received either on line, through hard copy over the counter, verbal feedback through the Public Open House and over the phone, there were significant differences with respect to feedback for the proposed Tree Management Bylaw from residents that reside in urban areas vs. those who reside in rural areas. Common themes included the following: Rural Feedback. The majority of the concerns or recommendations echoed by residents from the rural areas was about the need for more flexibility in the proposed Tree Management Bylaw for dealing with larger parcels that are treed. Rural residents need to cut down some trees every year for routine firewood collection or maintenance of forested lands. Such activity includes removal of hazard trees, dead or dying trees, and trees that create hardships for property owners. It was also noted that farms should be given special consideration with respect to costs and clearing restrictions. Urban Feedback. For urban residents, the majority of their comments focused on the need for appropriate retention and replacement criteria on smaller urban lots to suit the limited space available, (i.e right tree right place). There were a lot of comments emphasizing the importance of identifying and retaining unique, mature or old growth trees where possible to protect the natural heritage of a neighborhood. Retention should be considered for large healthy trees before replacement. There should be more incentives for private property owners to retain or protect significant trees on their lots. Adequate resources for education, outreach, and enforcement is important for the success of the bylaw. Common Ground. There was also a fair amount of common ground about the urban and rural landscape with respect to trees. Common themes and comments included: • Support for the scope of the proposed Tree Management Bylaw, protection and management measures especially for development related activity because it considers both short and long term costs and benefits to the community in addition to liveability and natural beauty. • Support for more responsible tree management practices especially for new development and avoidance of large scale clearing because it will helps landowners and neighbors reduce potential costs, risks and issues related to inappropriate tree clearing. • Suggestions from urban and rural residents about changing the definition of a 'tree' including increasing minimum tree size in the bylaw and exclusion of hedges. • Need for stronger regulations around spacing of development layouts and building lots to accommodate significant tree stands and provide enough space along property boundaries to retain or replace trees where possible to protect adjacent sites from negative impacts. • City of Maple Ridge needs to catch up with other municipalities in terms of how it regulates and manages the urban forest and trees. Tailor the bylaw to local context and unique qualities that residents came to the City for in the first place. Consider how the City can make this an effective bylaw without having to significantly increase costs to landowners. Page 13 of 15 RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO PROPOSED TREE BYLAW Based on the feedback raised during the consultation process and further review of tree permit applications over the past several months, the following changes are recommended to the Tree Management Bylaw 7133-2015 which are included below. A more detailed outline of the key changes recommended to the proposed Tree Management Bylaw are included with this report in Appendix D. Some of the key changes that are recommended for the proposed Tree Management Bylaw include: 1. Update the application of the bylaw. Expand the minimum size of a tree from 10cm to 20 cm dbh and exempt hedges in the proposed Tree Management Bylaw. 2. Provide permit exemptions for up to 5 trees per year in rural areas for parcels over 5 acres in size including parcels located within urban reserve areas as long as they retain a minimum number of trees (16 trees per acre over 20cm diameter dbh) and trees to be cut are not greater than 50 cm dbh in which case a permit will be required. 3. Expand permit fee exemptions in both urban and rural areas to include hazard trees, dead or dying trees, trees within 2 metres of a structure or infrastructure and tree removals for valid farming activity. Although staff are recommending permit fee exemptions for non development applicants for certain situations, the requirement for a tree cutting permit will still provide City staff with an opportunity to verify the status of trees that are to be removed and that removal is not going to result in potential negative impacts to adjacent properties including City lands and protected areas. If the City is provided with the opportunity to review a site and confirm the health status of the tree, then staff can waive the permit fee. Staff will also attempt to assist private property owners where possible with tree risk assessments to reduce costs of having to hire a certified risk assessor. For municipal approved hazard trees and dead or dying trees no permit fees are required. 4. Provide a more flexible permit fee structure including: • Permit fee exemptions for dead, dying, hazard trees for all non development sites • $50 permit fee up to 20 trees • 5 trees exempt per year in rural area if proposal meets minimum retention ratio of 16 trees per acre or 40 trees per hectare • $50 permit fee for sixth tree in rural area up to 20 trees; • $150 permit for greater than 20 trees with $25 per tree above 20; • $500 permit fee required for trees over 50cm unless approved as hazard tree or dead tree by the City of Maple Ridge; • $500 permit for development and large scale removal or clearing of 1 acre or more with $25 per tree above 20 trees up to maximum of $17,000 per acre; • Agricultural properties with farm status are exempt from permit fees if tree removal is required for farming but evidence of intent to farm is required. 5. Minimum retention requirements of 16 trees per acre or 40 trees per hectare ratio will determine if replacements or cash in lieu is required for all development and non-development related properties where a tree permit is required. A copy of the recommended changes to the proposed Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 is found in Appendix D where changes are highlighted in yellow. Page 14 of 15 INTER-DEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS AND LEGAL REVIEW Staff from Planning, Parks, Bylaws, Building, Engineering, Operations and Fire Department will continue to be included in the consultation process. The revised Bylaw has been and will continue to be reviewed by the City Solicitor prior to presentation of the Proposed Tree Management Bylaw to Council for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Readings. NEXT STEPS Pursuant with the Council approved process, staff will prepare the proposed Tree Management Bylaw 7133-2015 with amended changes, and will bring the bylaw to Council Workshop for discussion. Council feedback on the recommended changes within this report needs to be considered for the final draft Tree Management Bylaw 7133-2015. CONCLUSIONS Steps One, Two and Three of the Tree Management Bylaw Consultation Process have been completed. This report provides a summary of outcomes from the open house, discussions with tree experts and related development consultants, and feedback from the questionnaires. This report also includes a summary of some of the recommended changes to the proposed Bylaw based on the feedback received to date. "Original signed by Chuck Goddard" for Prepared by: Rod Stott Environmental Planner "Original signed by Gail Szostek" Co-Prepared by: Gail Szostek Environmental Technician, Certified Arborist "Original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning "Original signed by Frank Quinn" Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services "Original signed by Jim Rule" Approved by: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A -Questionnaire Summary and Comments Appendix B -Summary of Feedback from Tree Experts & Consultants Appendix C -Summary of Tree Permit Applications and Observations Appendix D -Recommended Changes to Proposed Tree Mgmt Bylaw Page 15 of 15 APPENDIXC MAPLE RIDGE City of Maple Ridge TO: Bnhsh Columbia Deep Roots Greater Heights Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read and Members of Council DATE: November 16, 2015 FILE NO: FROM: Acting Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Workshop SUBJECT: Update on Proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The following report is a follow up to the previous report to Council on September 14, 2015. At that time, staff were directed to provide citizens with an opportunity to comment on the proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 (Tree Management Bylaw) with the passing of the following Resolution: ''That the previously endorsed Tree Management review consultation process be modified to make the draft bylaw available for public viewing and comment, and that a report be provided on public feedback prior to consideration of the readings to Maple Ridge Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015". Pursuant with Council direction, the purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update on the recent Consultation. The report also includes an overview of the proposed Tree Management Bylaw; an overview of the key issues; and next steps. Following this report and update, the Tree Management Bylaw is scheduled to be on the December 7, 2015 Committee of the Whole agenda. RECOMMENDATION(S): That this report entitled "Update on Proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015", dated November 16, 2015 is submitted for information. DISCUSSION: a) BACKGROUND CONTEXT Historically, Maple Ridge citizens have noted through various surveys, consultation programs, and correspondence their key concerns, suggestions, and preferences for tree protection, management, and replacement. The majority of concerns were often associated with irresponsible tree cutting practices and large scale tree removal across the City that has negatively impacted adjacent properties, neighborhoods, municipal resources, and taxpayers. Common issues generally include erosion and sediment control concerns, slope stability, drainage and flooding, visual aesthetics, risks associated with blowdown or windfall where new forest edges have been created, as well as long term impacts to the natural landscape that have been established in neighborhoods. Other key issues being raised within the community include concerns with cumulative tree loss and large scale tree removal over time. 1 A clear message coming out of the consultation programs over the past few years is the City has a unique opportunity to benefit from the important economic, social, and ecological services that trees provide. As Maple Ridge continues to grow, there is a need for municipal regulation to promote responsible tree removal practices. Citizens generally want effective tree cutting regulations in place to avoid costly, negative impacts associated with tree removal on adjacent properties. Maple Ridge currently is in a unique and favorable position to effectively plan for and manage its urban forest and trees so there are numerous benefits for both current and future generations to come from these natural assets. The proposed Tree Management Bylaw includes significant revisions that emphasize a more responsible, cost effective, and comprehensive regulatory framework that has been influenced by various factors including consultation feedback from community stakeholders including Mayor and Council members. Over the past decade, the majority of municipalities in Metro Vancouver have updated their Tree Bylaws to deal with such issues and challenges. Tree Bylaws vary across municipalities depending on their unique challenges, histories, available resources, and geographic considerations. A comparison of municipal Tree Bylaws, including issues, regulatory options, fees, and implications was completed as part of the Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw review which is attached with Appendix A. b) OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED TREE MANAGEMENT BYLAW The following is a summary of key components being recommended under the proposed Tree Management Bylaw. 1. Scope and Application Areas. Proposed Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 The objectives, scope, & regulations of the proposed Tree Management Bylaw are consistent with the OCP objectives and policies. The proposed Bylaw also considers the wide range of concerns and suggestions from the community. It includes the following: • The Bylaw requires all landowners with a tree permit application and tree experts of record to be responsible for impacts associated with tree removal both on site and off site. • It emphasizes a pro-active management approach to tree protection, management, and re-planting efforts for all new developments, clear cutting, or large scale clearing applications. Land owners and consultants are responsible for dealing with existing and potential issues before they become problems. • It promotes a balanced approach to tree canopy cover either through tree retention and/or through tree replacement requirements. Each landowner or developer that applies for a tree cutting permit is responsible for ensuring minimum tree retention or possible tree replacement targets are being met to help balance out loss of services and benefits that urban forests provide to the community. • To permit some flexibility for landowners across the municipality with routine yard maintenance, there are a number of exemptions for property owners to help reduce costs and minimize delays. Exemptions apply to sites that meet minimum tree canopy cover targets. Proposed exemption measures include: o Exemption for rural property owners up to 10 trees per year if they meet the minimum tree canopy cover ratio to accommodate a reasonable amount of tree maintenance or firewood collection on an annual basis for landowners with heavily treed sites; o Agricultural lands have been given a number of permit fee exemptions to reduce costs and promote productive use of ALR and agricultural lands being farmed with active farm status or farm plans; 2 o Revised definition for permit trees increasing the size of trees requiring a permit from 10cm to 20cm dbh with exemptions for hedges, shrubs, and certain species of trees up to a certain amount per year; o For safety reasons, the proposed Tree Bylaw includes permit fee exemptions for hazard trees, dead or dying trees, or trees that are creating health issues; o There are also permit fee exemptions for trees creating economic hardship i.e. located within 2 metres of a structure or that are damaging infrastructure. • There is a cost recovery objective to tree removal in the community. The more trees being removed, the higher the permit fee costs and the more likely additional studies and mitigation requirements will be required by applicants. Typically larger scale tree removal requires additional staff resources and there is a loss of economic benefits to the broader community from the removal of these trees. A revised permit fee structure and tree replacement fund are proposed to help offset costs to the City and taxpayers. 2. Tree Permit Review Process. Proposed Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 There are different requirements for developers, clearcutting applications, and large scale tree removal applications than for non-development applications where only minor to moderate tree removal is being proposed. For large scale tree removal including clearcutting applications or removal of more than 20 trees per site, the following steps would be required: 1. Tree permit inquiry and meeting with development applicant; 2. Tree survey and arborist report required early on in development process with bio-physical inventory of trees on site and recommendations for retention, replacement, and mitigation using pro-active site source controls; 3. City staff receive and review preliminary materials from Arborist or Forester of record and undertake initial visit to determine if application and supporting materials are complete; 4. Tree Permit application submitted to City with any additional required related studies, plans, recommendations and security deposit fees; 5. Permit reviewed and coordinated with relevant environmental DP requirements, grading plans, drainage plans, and erosion sediment control plans; 6. Initial inspection letter from Arborist of record received confirming site source controls are in place and operational, Environmental DP's approved, and Tree Permit issued; 7. Review of monitoring reports and final inspection letter to ensure work completed as per permit; 8. Security deposit for replacement trees returned. For single family building or small scale development permit applications, the proposed Tree Management Bylaw includes the following review steps and requirements: 1. Contact City for tree removal application and to provide background information; 2. City staff make initial visit to determine permit requirements and verify information; 3. Application submitted to City with required studies, fees for review, and arborist report including consideration of retention potential, safety/hazard concerns, and replacement opportunities on site or off site through cash in lieu option; 4. Tree Permit issued upon approval; 5. Final inspection by tree monitor; and 6. City Arborist to ensure work completed as per permit. 3 l I I I For non-building permit small scale tree removal applications, the proposed Tree Management Bylaw includes the following steps and requirements: 1. Contact City for tree removal application; 2. City Arborist makes initial site visit to determine permit requirements including assessment of potential retention, hazard/safety concerns, replacement requirements; 3. Application submitted to City with required information and permit fees; 4. Tree Permit issued upon approval; 5. Final inspection by City Arborist. 3. Protection Measures Proposed Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 Under the proposed Tree Management Bylaw, there are a number of new protection measures for tree permit applications including: 1. Tree retention plans and surveys are required for significant trees and tree stands on new developments, clearcutting applications, or where more than 20 trees being cut. Provincial Community Charter legal requirements for land owners, safety and health concerns, economic hardship, and unique characteristics of each site have to be taken into consideration. Significant retention within developable portions of sites that impacts density yield will likely require compensation or density bonus incentives; 2. Arborist reports must be provided for small scale development applications that require tree removal applications. This includes retention recommendations where possible for significant trees or larger trees, especially outside of the building envelope areas and along property boundaries. Consideration needs to be given to legal land use requirements, safety concerns, site characteristics, and other input from experts of record; 3. Temporary protection measures for trees that have been identified for protection or retention on site and off site in adjacent properties or municipal park lands to avoid damage to trees, root zones, or encroachment into conservation areas during construction activity including root zone protection measures; 4. Where retention or protection of trees is not possible, replacement trees are required and these replacement trees would be protected by being placed into a restrictive tree conservation covenant area. 4. Tree Management and Mitigation Measures Proposed Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 For large scale tree removal including clearcutting, the proposed Tree Management Bylaw requires applicants to have a more pro-active tree management plan and tree survey to deal with potential issues up front including the following considerations: 1. Initial requirements for adequate tree surveys, supporting studies and plans depending on complexity of site, scale of tree removal, & timing of the activity. This information is required early in the development review process and includes consideration of tree protection opportunities, impact management, phased clearing and replacement efforts; 2. Default requirements for on the ground site source controls to be implemented, inspected, monitored, and maintained on all lots before, during, and after construction activity with emphasis on protection & mitigation measures for trees to be retained on site and off site; 3. Ongoing coordination amongst consultants and developers for appropriate re-grading, drainage, siting of building envelopes, and temporary tree protection control measures for protection of approved retained trees or tree stands on site and off site; 4 4. Communications and signage requirements that will help illustrate what is being proposed to the broader public, neighbours, and staff which will likely cut down on complaints; 5. Replacement or replanting plans including security deposit for protected trees and replacement trees along with maintenance requirements. For single family building permits or or small scale development permit applications that do not involve clearcutting applications or large scale tree removal, the proposed Tree Management Bylaw includes a requirement for an arborist report that needs to consider the following: 1. Erosion and Sediment Control plan if clearing a larger area; 2. Tree protection fencing if trees within 5 meters of excavation and/or grading; 3. Tree risk/blowdown assessments if new forest edge will be created; 4. Retention measures for healthy suitable trees outside of building footprint or outside of building envelope along property boundaries; 5. Replacement requirements if retaining less that 16 trees per acre on site; 6. Security deposit if tree replacements or tree retention is required; 7. Signage for tree permit required within 24 hours of tree removal to take place. For non-building permit small scale tree removal applications, the proposed Tree Management Bylaw will require the applicant to work with the City Arborist to ensure they have demonstrated a best level of effort to provide adequate protection, mitigation, and replacement trees on site. No arborist is required unless there is a difference of professional opinion that is required or requested. Depending on the characteristics, complexity, and size of the site and the number of trees being removed, additional studies or mitigation plans can be required in accordance with other municipal bylaws. Signage is also required. 5. Replacement Measures Minimum retention ratios of 16 trees per acre (40 trees per hectare) are required for all sites or replacement. This is required in order to achieve a tree canopy cover balance across the City. Currently, Metro Vancouver has a regional target of 40% tree canopy cover target for the region as a whole, but Maple Ridge will likely exceed this tree canopy cover target given its tree protection and re-planting requirements under the proposed Tree Management Bylaw, Watercourse Protection Regulations, and Natural Features DP hillside management efforts. Replacement requirements include consideration for a number of different stakeholders and factors that applies to new development sites or large scale clearing applications including: • Coordination by professional consultants of record and consideration of potential safety concerns, impacts to neighboring properties, environmental sensitive areas. • Consideration for Provincial legislative requirements, municipal bylaw regulations, and OCP environmental DP guideline objectives. • Right Tree Right Place principle to allow landowners some choice in appropriate selection of tree species and sizes on their backyards or front yards. • Mandatory monitoring and maintenance for re-planting on development sites including re-planting security deposits for development and clearcutting applications. • Cash in Lieu options where on site replacement is not possible or desirable. • Minimum tree canopy cover target ratios for all sites with target of 30% tree cover within developable portions of a site if a tree permit is required. 5 6. Enforcement and Compliance There are various tools that can be used by the City to help with enforcement related matters and improve compliance with municipal objectives and requirements: • Proposed Stop Work Orders and tickets can be issued immediately for Bylaw infractions rather than fines which can take time to implement or enforce in a Court of Law. There are new enforcement measures being proposed in the Tree Management Bylaw. • Staff can deny a tree cutting permit application that doesn't meet or comply with Tree Management Bylaw regulations. An appeal can be made to Council. • Environmental performance securities are also proposed for development sites or large scale clear cutting applications where there are significant tree stands that are supposed to be protected or where replacement trees are required. Securities can be used to offset impacts from disturbance from heavy machinery, grading activity, or construction infill activity. 7. Permit Fee Structure Flexible Fee Structure that will provide sufficient staff resources. • Self sufficient fiscal mechanism to support staff resources for Bylaw implementation including provision of technical assistance to landowners, permit review, enforcement and outreach. • Reasonable costs for small scale tree removal or small scale development with minimum tree removal to encourage citizens to work with Tree Permit process. • Higher permit fee costs for larger scale clearing vs. cost based on size of properties to help offset costs of staff resources and costs to community from tree removal. c) CONSULTATION SUMMARY Recent Tree Bylaw Consultation Process: On September 14, 2015, Council directed staff to provide citizens with an opportunity to comment on the most recent revisions to proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015. A three week consultation period was approved that ended October 5, 2015. It is important to remember that this fifth and final consultation step was only one component of the broader consultation review program. The following measures were taken between September 14, 2015 and October 5, 2015: • A copy of the materials that were presented to Council Workshop on September 14, 2015 were made available on-line on the municipal website on September 15, 2015. This included a copy of the presentation, report, and draft Tree Management Bylaw with revisions that were highlighted. • A newspaper advertisement was posted in the local newspapers on three separate occasions during this period to raise awareness in the community. • A hard copy of the material was made available at the front counter in case citizens wanted to take a look at the Bylaw without a computer. • Emails that were forwarded onto staff from Mayor and Council were forwarded onto the Planning Inquiries during the consultation period. • Ongoing consultation with permit applicants, citizens, and City solicitors during the time frame. 6 I. Consultation Outcome: Key Themes There was considerable and diverse feedback from the public and other community stakeholders over the past eight months through a variety of consultation mechanisms. There were equal amounts of feedback from both urban and rural residents. In the last consultation period, the majority of the respondents were from the urban area with approximately a dozen responses from rural areas. There were a total of 64 responses in the last consultation period. All of these comments were forwarded onto the Planning Department Inquiries email directory. Staff continue to receive verbal input from tree permit applicants across the City, interested citizens, as well as from consultants of record working with development applications in our community. A brief outline of the most recent consultation program, how many comments were received, and the nature of the comments is described in this section of the report. More detail on specific comments can be found in Appendices B of this report. It is important to keep the recent consultation feedback in perspective. In the previous questionnaire and consultation program in the second phase of the consultation process, there were over 650 responses from the community. In addition, there have been over 200 tree permit applications in the past eight months with input from landowners. There were approximately 150 emails and phone calls to staff over the past eight months with questions and feedback. There has also been three Council Workshops with opportunities for Mayor and Council to provide feedback and suggestions on the proposed Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015. The bulk of the written and verbal comments received from citizens and residents since September 5, 2015 emphasized the following points: 1. Stronger protection measures are needed especially for 'significant trees', larger trees and older trees in urban, suburban and rural areas; 2. Continue to provide protection for heritage trees identified along Shady Lane and develop a heritage registry for other significant landmark or historical trees across the City; 3. Reduce the number of exemptions in the proposed Bylaw, increase enforcement penalties, and increase the tree permit fees for tree removal applications; 4. Ongoing feedback and concerns from rural area residents about the need for ongoing stewardship of their own lands including routine moderate maintenance of trees; 5. Need for clear information handouts and outreach program with the proposed Bylaw on what is required under the proposed Bylaw for landowners, developers, and citizens; 6. The City needs to provide adequate resources to increase education and awareness about the importance of trees in the community and monitor how we are doing over time; 7. Provide some clear parameters around how many cottonwoods and alders can be removed as many of these trees still serve an important function in the community; 8. Shorten duration of how long tree permits should be given for, tighten parameters on tree species exemptions, and ensure adequate and consistent enforcement measures; 9. Provide adequate protection and management requirements for trees in vulnerable aquifer areas especially around groundwater recharge areas because many landowners in the community are still dependent on groundwater resources that in turn rely on trees; 10. Differing comments stating there had been too much time being spent on the Tree Bylaw consultation process or too little consultation. Many citizens are waiting for new proposed bylaw to be approved because the tree permit fees are much less for small scale removal. 7 3. Solicitors Advice and Feedback In addition to the consultation program with the general public, there was an opportunity for the City Solicitor to review the proposed Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 with emphasis on creating a legally sound regulatory framework that is enforceable in a Court of Law. Overall, the City Solicitor did not have any significant concerns about what has been proposed in the Tree Management Bylaw to date, but they did have some important suggestions with respect to format and language, and integration with other Provincial and municipal regulations. Up until 1999, the Municipal Act limited a Council's powers to regulating tree removal to only those areas considered hazardous due to land slip or erosion. Amendments to the Municipal Act, BC Community Charter, and BC Local Government Act in the past decade now provide municipalities with the authority, to regulate or prohibit the cutting and removal of trees on any land within the municipality. Council may require the holding of a permit that establishes the conditions for the cutting or removal of trees and impose fees for such a permit. The Solicitor cautions that Section 50(2) of the Community Charter provides that if a tree bylaw has the effect of preventing all uses permitted under the zoning bylaw or preventing the development to the density permitted under the zoning bylaw, the bylaw does not apply to the parcel to the extent necessary to allow the permitted use or density. The bylaw applies, however, if council commits the City to: 1) Pay compensation to the owner for any reduction in the market value caused by the prohibition; or 2) Provide by development permit or development variance permit alternative means for the parcel to be used for a permitted use or developed to the permitted density (s. 50(3)). 4. lssues\FAQ's\Findings: • Can the City provide additional protection measures for trees, especially significant trees in urban, suburban, and rural areas? Yes, while at the same time the proposed Tree Management Bylaw must take into consideration the following: o Community Charter legislative requirements around zoning density lot yields and reasonable land use for private landowners; o Safety considerations such as hazard trees, dead or dying trees, damaged trees, risks to adjacent properties and structures, health concerns, wildfire interface areas & windfall or blowdown concerns; o 'Right tree right place' principle comes into consideration for landowners with respect to space around their building envelopes for building renovations, light and usable yard space, desire for food gardens and ornamental trees or landscape, viewscapes, spacing of trees, economic hardship, etc; o Other Provincial and municipal protection requirements on site including setbacks for watercourses, steep slopes, geotechnical areas, community trails, etc; o Replacement trees or other types of re-planting is sometimes a more suitable option than retention requirements. 8 • Should all properties in rural areas regardless of size be allowed to remove 10 trees per year without a permit? This regulation was in response to earlier feedback from rural property owners. The purpose of this exemption clause was to allow landowners in rural areas with heavily treed lots to continue to carry out a reasonable amount of routine maintenance, to collect firewood, and deal with dynamic life cycle of trees on an annual basis without having to go through a permit process every time they want to remove a tree over 20cm dbh. o Based on findings from recent permit applications, the average landowner cuts between 5-10 trees per year (over 20cm dbh) in rural areas, usually in close range to existing structures. o This number appears to be about the same whether properties are two acres or ten acres or more in size. Therefore an exemption of 10 trees per year in rural areas is recommended if the property has at least 30% tree canopy cover and trees are less than 75cm dbh. • Should there be an open ended blanket exemption for removal of certain species of trees like alders and cottonwoods? No, some parameters should be applied to these exemptions to maintain responsible clearing practices. This regulation was originally included at the request of Council and citizens because of the ongoing issues and concerns from some landowners about certain species of trees like cottonwoods and alders that tend to decay or die earlier than other species which require ongoing maintenance. These species also tend to dominate the initial stages of forest succession in our bio-geo/climate zones because they are pioneer species and they tend to populate landscapes in a dense manner. They are more prone to windfall risk after a certain period of time because of their natural life cycle. These species can still provide an important function for healthy forest ecosystems, soils, slope stability, floodplain management, and for riparian habitat. Impacts from removal of these trees can vary depending on their location, age, size, and amount of trees being removed. Therefore it is recommended that some additional parameters or considerations are included in the proposed Bylaw around their removal. The exemption has been modified to the following: Up to 20 alders or cottonwoods over 20cm dbh can be cut per year on a site without a permit if they meet the following conditions: o They are located outside environmental protected areas, parks, and public lands; o They are not located on slopes greater than 25% or within a geotechnical protection areas; o They are considered a hazard or danger tree by the City Arborist or a certified Tree Risk Assessor; and o There are less than 20 trees of these species over 20cm dbh to be cut per year. • Are there too many exemptions for landowners in the urban and rural areas? No. It is believed that the proposed Bylaw provides a practical approach to tree management that is right for our community at this time. Many landowners in the community have properties that remain heavily treed especially in rural areas. Over the past eight months there has been considerable and varied feedback from the community on this topic and the proposed Bylaw has taken this into consideration. 9 o Overall, the majority of the responses from the consultation feedback has been in favour of some reasonable level of flexibility for landowners, especially residents that live in rural areas that require routine maintenance for trees every year. o Based on tree cutting permit applications over the past eight months, staff found that the majority of rural property owners cut on average 5-10 trees per year for firewood collection, for removal of dead or dying trees near their structures, to create more space and light, etc. no matter what the size of their property. o Urban properties generally have far fewer trees and smaller tree canopy cover than properties in rural areas. Urban areas also tend to have higher risks or safety concerns associated with tree removal than rural areas given higher densities and proximity of structures to one another. Therefore urban properties have fewer exemptions than rural properties. o Over 25% of the permit applications for tree removal in both urban and rural areas over the past eight months was related to removal of hazard trees, dead or dying trees, trees creating economic hardship, or trees within close proximity of a building structure. Under the proposed Bylaw, all landowners across the municipality have the opportunity to utilize these tree permit fee exemptions but they have to provide sufficient proof to the City Arborist that they have a valid exemption. • How are the proposed tree permit fees justified? As noted in the report to Council of September 14, 2015 the proposed fee structure has been revised to promote and achieve the following objectives: o The lower permit fees for small scale tree removal and stronger enforcement measures around non-compliance will likely encourage landowners to apply for a tree cutting permit. This will result in more responsible cutting. o Larger scale tree removal will require higher permit fees. Fees increase as the number of trees being removed increases. Additional fees are justified because of the additional staff time and resources required to oversee the tree management plans, review necessary supporting studies, coordinate professionals of record, and carry out enforcement and communications. o Higher permit fees for large scale tree removal can potentially be a deterrent to some landowners for clearcutting of sites. o Permit fees can help fund a full time dedicated City Arborist to properly implement and enforce the proposed Tree Bylaw. Furthermore, the City Arborist can assist citizens and landowners with hazard assessments, stewardship efforts, and general concerns. This is anticipated to help avoid or reduce ongoing impacts and costs being passed onto the municipality, taxpayers, and adjacent property owners. • Are there any timelines to how Jong a tree permit application can last or limits to the amount of permits that can be applied for on an annual basis? The proposed Tree Management Bylaw includes a four month time limit before a tree permit expires. Appropriate site source control requirements for tree removal is often dependent on timing and consideration for seasonal weather pattern changes and bird nesting activity. A four month period includes a reasonable time period for the City Arborist to carry out monitoring and provide technical assistance. 10 1 I I An applicant is permitted to apply for more than one tree cutting permit per year, however, there are additional protection, mitigation, and replacement measures that begin to apply once the tree canopy cover reaches a certain minimum percentage or a certain amount of trees are being cut per year. • Are proposed tree canopy cover standards adequate and what are they based upon? Yes, the proposed Maple Ridge tree canopy cover standards are based on research and best practices being carried out across the Province, the country and internationally. Based on American Forest standards which are being used worldwide, the recommended minimum tree canopy cover target to maximize benefits that tree canopy cover provides (depending on climate, topography, and land use patterns) for many cities is as follows: o 15-20% in central business district and industrial areas; o 25-30% in urban residential and light commercial areas; o 50% in suburban residential areas. The new generic tree canopy cover standard being used for urban and suburban areas in North American cities including Toronto, Ottawa, and Metro Vancouver area is 40%. This was recently established based on studies and recommendations by a number of professional organizations including the International Professional Arborist Society and USDA Forest Service. Maple Ridge currently has an estimated 50-55% tree canopy cover across the entire municipality based on a recent forest inventory evaluation carried out by the City. The proposed strategy for tree canopy cover is also estimated to result in a 50-55% tree canopy cover for the City of Maple Ridge with the proposed measures. In Maple Ridge existing tree canopy cover for different built out areas is as follows: o Urban residential areas is approximately 30-35%; o Suburban areas is 50-55%; o Tree canopy cover in rural areas is currently around 65%. It is estimated that the City will maintain a total tree canopy cover target of 55% by requiring a minimum 30% tree canopy cover target on 'developable' lands in the proposed Tree Bylaw. Additional tree canopy cover will be provided through protected conservation and natural hazard areas identified throughout the City. Approximately 20-25% of the current forest cover in Maple Ridge's 'planned' or buildable areas excluding Crown Lands are protected by other regulations and fall within these 'non-developable' areas. • What kind of protection measures are there for 'Heritage Trees' in the Bylaw? Heritage trees are outside the scope of this current Tree Management Bylaw review process as it is considered more of a policy item than a regulatory item. The proposed Tree Management Bylaw focuses on protection measures for 'significant trees' over 70cm dbh and healthy mature stands of trees where possible especially on larger greenfield development sites as well as heavily treed properties where clearcutting activity or large scale removal of trees is being proposed. Tree retention efforts are also encouraged on smaller urban lots, but consideration needs to be given to local residents with respect to safety and liability concerns, right tree right place considerations, and other factors which were outlined in the report. 11 The proposed Tree Management Bylaw also emphasizes retention efforts for trees along the perimeters of properties as well as temporary protection measures that are required during and after construction activity to ensure protected trees remain undamaged. The Community Heritage Committee are considering an update to the municipal Heritage Inventory which includes the identification of Heritage Trees throughout the community. Other options for protection of Heritage Trees may come through the future discussion and recommendations from the proposed Environmental Advisory Committee. • How do we monitor, measure, and evaluate how we are doing? Staff will monitor tree removal and permit activity and will report back to Council in the later part of 2016. There are also opportunities through use of remote sensing and innovative mapping software programs to explore potential inventory, monitoring and evaluation techniques for tracking locations of trees, tree species variety and health condition, abundance or loss of trees, and services they provide to the community. This is another potential priority item that was identified in the Environmental Management Strategy which was endorsed by Council in 2015. It will likely be part of future discussion and recommendations with the potential soon to be formed Environmental Advisory Committee. d) INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: There have been various internal meetings and workshops held with staff from the Planning, Parks, Building, Engineering, Operations, Fire Department, and Building & Licencing Departments to discuss implications of the proposed Bylaw. Overall, it is believed that the proposed amendments are superior to the interim and previous Tree Protection Bylaw and provide a greater degree of protection, responsible management, flexibility with respect to permit fees, and certainty to the existing processes and practices. e) BUSINESS PLAN/FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: In assuming responsibility for the proposed Tree Management Bylaw, the City will likely be incurring some additional costs. Public feedback has stressed the importance of staff visiting the sites to determine permit requirements, verify information, and to assist with technical risk assessments. Also identified was the importance of carrying out enforcement and compliance duties. There will be impacts on staffing within the Planning Department. In the previous report, Staff estimate that based on current permit activity, approximately $130,000 could be generated in fees in 2016. This would be sufficient to employ a full time permanent City Arborist to help implement and enforce the proposed Tree Bylaw. This will be addressed in the Planning Department Business Plan. 12 CONCLUSIONS: Based on the City of Maple Ridge's OCP objectives and policies in addition to feedback from Council and the broader community, there is a need for a more comprehensive, effective, and progressive Tree Management Bylaw. The proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 will provide a more responsible, pro-active, and cost effective regulatory framework for tree protection, management, replacement, and removal in Maple Ridge. Following this status update to Council, the Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 is scheduled for the December 7, 2015 Committee of the Whole agenda. "original signed by Rod Stott" Prepared by: Rod Stott Environmental Planner "original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by: Christine Carter Director of Planning "original signed by Frank Quinn" Approved by: Frank Quinn General Manager, Public Works and Development Services "original signed by Paul Gill" Concurrence: Paul Gill Acting Chief Administrative Officer Attachments: Appendix A. Comparison of Municipal Bylaws Appendix B. Findings and Comments from Consultation Period September 15 -October 5, 2015 13 ' ,. l I [~·-· APPENDIX D mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge TO: FROM: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer DATE: FILE NO: ATIN: December 7, 2015 cow SUBJECT: First, Second and Third Readings Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 7191-2015 Development Application Fee Amending Bylaw No. 7192-2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No. 7133 -2015 (Tree Bylaw) will provide a more responsible and pro-active approach to tree protection, management, and replacement in Maple Ridge. The proposed Bylaw considers ongoing issues, challenges and opportunities that our community is facing based on feedback from Council and citizens. It reflects current social, economic, and ecological principles, objectives and policies reflected in the municipal Official Community Plan and Corporate Plans. It also considers the unique geography of Maple Ridge, along with other important factors such as weather patterns, land use history, socio-economic conditions, and new information about how tree management can assist local governments to grow in a smarter and more sustainable manner. Overall, it includes a comprehensive regulatory framework that emphasizes new requirements with respect to tree protection, management and replacement measures. In Nov. 2014, Council directed that the Tree Bylaw be reviewed and the process was subsequently endorsed in February 2015. Since that time, there has been extensive feedback from residents, tree experts, and other community stakeholders stemming from on-line questionnaires, open houses, emails and meeting with Council. The result of this consultation is a balanced bylaw that neither prohibits nor impedes development related activity or routine tree maintenance on private property. Rather, it is designed to improve tree protection, mitigation and replacement efforts especially where large scale clearing and cumulative tree removal is taking place over time. It is designed to promote responsible tree cutting practices across the City to help mitigate or reduce impacts on neighboring properties. It also includes re-planting or cost recovery requirements where tree clearing is taking place to help offset impacts to the broader community from cumulative tree losses and ensure a healthy tree canopy cover for future generations. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That Maple Ridge Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No. 7133 -2015 be given first, second and third reading. 2. That Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 7191-2015 be given first, second and third reading. 3. That Maple Ridge Development Application Fee Amending Bylaw No. 7192-2015 be given first, second and third reading. Page 1 BACKGROUND Historically, Maple Ridge citizens have noted through various consultation programs, surveys, correspondence, their key concerns and issues associated with irresponsible and large scale tree removal that has negatively impacted adjacent properties, citizens, municipal resources, and taxpayers. Common issues generally include erosion and sediment control concerns, slope stability, drainage and flooding, risks associated with blowdown or windfall where new forest edges have been created, as well as long term impacts to the natural landscape that have been established in neighborhoods. Other key issues associated with cumulative tree loss and large scale tree removal includes loss of numerous economic, social, and ecological services and benefits that trees provide to the community. The Tree Bylaw (No. 7133-2015) has been drafted taking into consideration lessons learned from other local governments from the Lower Mainland and other municipalities in B.C. Numerous discussions have taken place with other municipal tree bylaw officers and urban foresters to learn from their successes and mistakes. The City of Maple Ridge has also had an opportunity to work with the City Solicitor to review the proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw so it can be enforceable in a B.C. Court of Law. Furthermore, there has been over nine months of tree permit application review involving over 300+ properties within Maple Ridge that have helped as a testing ground for existing and proposed regulations, issues, and concerns on the ground. Furthermore, the proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 includes a regulatory framework that reflect current community values, principles, and objectives concerning protection and management of trees which are outlined in the Maple Ridge Official Community Plan. Existing Maple Ridge OCP Policy Framework The main components of the proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 reflect current OCP principles, objectives, and policies as listed below: Tree Protection OCP Objectives: Ensure mature trees are maintained and protected where possible and replant if necessary encouraging the use of native species. (OCP Policy 5-13) Maple Ridge will promote retention of urban and mature trees and woodland areas, and ensure additional trees are provided as part of all development proposals; (OCP Policy 5-40) Maple Ridge will encourage tree retention and tree protection programs; Tree Management OCP Objectives: Maple Ridge will pursue low impact development measures where possible and increase 'carbon sink' effects through tree planting and protection. (OCP Policy 5-22) Landscape disturbance should be minimized by retaining trees where possible and require replanting or enhanced planting as a condition of development; (OCP Policy 5-43) Maple Ridge will maintain and enhance its forests and woodland areas; and (OCP Policy 5-45) encourage low impact 'smart' development, and will promote initiatives that reduce community greenhouse emissions & help offset climate change impacts; Page 2 Tree Replacement OCP Objectives Identify, protect and enhance ecosystems, sensitive areas and features (OCP Policy 5-31) Require enhancement & rehabilitation of lands as part of development process; (OCP Policy 5-40) Maintain and enhance forests and woodland areas; and (OCP Policy 5-43) Include climate change considerations and initiatives CONSULTATION PROCESS The following consultation process was endorsed by Council on February 2, 2015 as part of the previous Tree Management Bylaw review to encourage community input, transparency, and provide citizens with opportunities for feedback: Table 1. Tree Management Bylaw Process & Timelines Step I -Council Endorse Review Process & Amendments to current Bylaw No. Feb.2,2015 5896-2000 • Council to endorse the Tree Protection and Management Bylaw ,/ review/consultation process; • Consideration and granting of 1st, 2nd, 3rd reading of Tree Protection Amending Bylaw 7134-2015 at Workshop. Step II -Focus Group Feedback -proposed "draft" Tree Management Bylaw to be Late Feb. circulated to local professional tree experts including arborists, foresters, woodlot March managers, development consultants, environmental professionals, and environmental stewardship groups. ,/ Step Ill -Open House -consultation with general public & neighbourhood groups April 2015 ,/ Step IV -Consultation Update to Council -provide feedback on what we heard to June to Council with reports and presentation on revisions to Tree Protection and Sept. 2015 Management Bylaw for review, questions, and consideration. ,/ ~ Additional consultation step added Sept. 15-Oct 5, 2015. ~ Final update to Council at Workshop Nov. 16, 2015 Step V -Final Consideration of Tree Protection and Management Dec 8, Bylaw No. 7133-2015 for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Reading 2015 Step VI -Final Adoption Jan 2016 Page 3 CONSULTATION RESULTS An outline of the Tree Bylaw consultation process was presented and endorsed by Council on February 2, 2015. An update on the proposed Bylaw, the review process and consultation feedback was provided to Council on four separate occasions at Council Workshop; including February, June, September, and November of 2015. Over the past nine months, the overall consultation process included feedback and comments received from a wide variety of participants through various consultation mechanisms which are outlined below: 1. There were 639 Tree Bylaw questionnaires submitted to the City of Maple Ridge; 2. Over 30 tree experts and other local government Tree Bylaw officers that provided verbal and written comments; 3. Approximately 150 people attended the Public Open House attendees for the proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw; 4. Over 240 permit applications and site visits occurred under the interim tree bylaw; 5. Over 200 phone calls and emails from citizens; 6. There were four Council Workshop sessions; 7. City Solicitors review; and 8. There were 64 written responses during the final consultation period. Overall, the extensive consultation review process provided by the City enables citizens, tree experts, Council, City Solicitors, and other stakeholders in the community to participate and provide feedback which helped to create an innovative, balanced, and responsible Tree Protection and Management Bylaw for the City of Maple Ridge. Brief Outline of Tree Bylaw Consultation Process and Findings to Date: (1) November 2014 -Council directed staff to prepare a scoping report for a review of tree regulations based on feedback from community stakeholders over the past several years. The Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw was identified as being outdated, ineffective, and inflexible. (2) February 2015 -Council directed a review of previous regulations and practices take place and that amendments occur to ensure more effective regulation for tree removal activity. (3) February to November 2015 -The Tree Bylaw review and consultation period included: • A regional wide comparative assessment of what other municipalities are doing with respect to tree bylaws including emphasis on protection and management regulations; • An analysis of local weaknesses, strengths, opportunities, and options in terms of tree regulations, standards or best practices, fiscal implications, and exemptions; • Meetings with tree experts, questionnaires and open houses with general public, and workshops with Mayor and Council on the proposed tree protection and management objectives, regulations, processes, and best practices; • A review of interim tree permit applications including consideration of implications for previous, current and proposed tree management requirements; and • Solicitor's input with emphasis on creating a legally sound regulatory framework that is enforceable in a court of law. (4) Final consideration by Council of the proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw -Page 4 ~. r The proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 and consultation process will result in the following improvements: • Legislative clarity and consistency with requirements of senior environmental agencies as well as municipal OCP objectives, bylaws, and best practices; • Improved framework that focuses on pro-active protection, responsible management, and replacement requirements for new developments and clearcutting applications; • Comprehensive and flexible framework for dealing with potential tree protection, management, and replacement efforts for non development applications in urban, suburban, and rural areas; • Greater consideration of services and benefits associated with tree canopy cover; • Improved supervision, coordination, & monitoring by professional consultants; • Greater flexibility and cost recovery opportunities for permit application fees; and • Greater strength and clarity with respect to enforcement measures. BYLAW OVERVIEW: There are five key components to the proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw: 1. Application and scope of the Tree Management Bylaw 2. Tree Protection Measures 3. Tree Management requirements 4. Tree Replacement requirements 5. Exemptions and Fees The following is a summary of key components under the proposed Tree Bylaw 7133-2015: Permit Application and Exemption Measures: o Applies to Permit Trees over 20cm dbh; o Applies to tree cutting applicants in urban, suburban, and rural areas; o Applies to development and non-development tree cutting activity; o Exemptions for farming activity, hazard trees, dead or dying trees, trees within 2 metres of building structures, and minimum 10 trees can be removed per year in rural areas (lots over 0.5 ha) if they have met minimum tree canopy cover targets, and limited exemptions for alders/cottonwoods per year in urban/rural areas; o Tree Management Plans required for new developments or larger scale clearing (more than 20 trees) and Arborist Report required for building permits, smaller scale cutting (more than 5 trees), or cutting of Significant Trees. Proposed Protection Measures: o Protection assessment is required for significant trees on every site with consideration for tree expert opinions, recommendations of consultants of record, along with City Arborist and other municipal decision makers; o Retention plan, tree survey and arborist report is required for significant tree stands with new greenfield developments, and tree permit applications where clearcutting is taking place, or more than 20 trees are being removed; o Requirements on all sites for retention measures for trees located along the perimeter of properties, retention consideration for blowdown concerns, drainage, and root protection zones; Page 5 o On site retention measures are required before, during, and after construction for development activity to ensure long term survival of trees that are supposed to be protected including park trees, protected areas, adjacent sites; Consideration must be given to factors such as risk and safety, land use rights, site characteristics, developable areas, and compensation opportunities with each site. Proposed Management and Mitigation Measures: Tree mitigation requirements for new developments, or clearcutting applications, or large scale removal where more than 20 permit trees are being removed or cut: o Tree Management Plans and tree survey including supporting studies, tree inventory, retention and replacement plans, mitigation recommendations; o Supervision, coordination, inspection, and monitoring by tree expert of record; o City Arborist -site visits, permit review, enforcement and compliance; o Tree security deposits for significant tree replacements & maintenance. Tree mitigation requirements for new building permits and other development related permits where less than 20 permit trees are being removed: o Arborist report and tree survey including information on what is being removed, what is being retained, what is being replaced; o Mitigation measures proposed during construction; o Replacement plan and potential security deposits. Replacement Measures: A minimum retention ratio of 16 trees per acre (40 trees per hectare) is required for all sites with a Tree Permit application or appropriate tree replacement measures are required. Currently, Metro Vancouver has a regional target of 40% tree canopy cover target for the region as a whole, but the City of Maple Ridge will likely exceed this tree canopy cover target. G iven existing and proposed tree protection and re-planting requirements under the Tree Protect i o n a n d Management Bylaw, in addition to other municipal conservation requirements, the City of Maple Ridge should maintain an overall tree canopy cover of 50-55%. If trees cannot be replaced on the same lot, the owner may plant on another parcel, private or public land, as approved by City; or may pay cash in lieu of $425 per replacement tree (to a maximum of 40 trees per ha or $17,000 and 16 trees per acre or $6,800). The cash compensation would be placed in a Tree Fund that will be used only for planting of trees on public and private lands to replace tree canopy lost, for tree stewardship initiatives, or to purchase public land for re-planting purposes. Enforcement and Compliance: The administration and enforcement of the Tree Bylaw will be the responsibility of the Planning Department's Environmental staff. Implementation of this bylaw will involve a review and inspection mechanism similar to the one already used by the Planning Department for the current Tree Permit and Soil Deposit Permit Process. An Environmental Technician who is a certified Arborist and Tree Risk Assessor will review and evaluate permit applications, and conduct site visits to confirm bylaw compliance. Page 6 There are various tools that can be used by the City to help with enforcement related matters and improve compliance with municipal objectives and requirements: o Certified tree experts of record and landowners will be responsible for ensuring safe practices, and they will be responsible for preparing Tree Management Plans for each site, supervising tree cutting crews and monitoring tree protection measures until development completion. o Proposed Stop Work Orders and tickets can be issued immediately for Bylaw infractions rather than fines which can take time to implement or enforce in a Court of Law. · o Staff can deny a tree cutting permit application that doesn't meet or comply with Tree Management Bylaw regulations. o Environmental performance securities are proposed for protection of trees and where replacement trees are required. o Appeal to Council if a Tree Permit is denied. Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 6929-2012 has been amended to include some larger fines, expanded to include new regulations proposed in the Tree Management Bylaw, and there are also a few updates to Bylaw section numbers. Details can be found in Appendix B. It is recommended that the Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 7191-2015 be given first, second and third Readings. Proposed Permit Fee Structure The proposed Permit Fee Structure will provide the following: o Self-sufficient fiscal mechanism to support staff resources for Bylaw implementation including provision of technical assistance to landowners, permit review, enforcement and outreach.1 o Reasonable costs for small scale tree removal or small scale development with minimum tree removal to encourage citizens to work with Tree Permit process. o Higher permit fee costs for larger scale clearing vs. cost based on size of properties to help offset costs of staff resources and costs to community from tree removal impacts. o Some fee exemptions are included for applicants that wish to pursue tree removal that have active farm use status, landowners with hazard trees, dead or danger trees, trees within 2 metres of building structures, or trees that are causing economic damage to infrastructure and structures. The following permit fees are being proposed for the new Tree Bylaw No. 7133-2015: TREE CUTTING PERMIT (see Bylaw 7133-2015) (a) Urban Area and Urban Reserve lots and Rural parcels less than 0.5 ha $50 for first tree + $25 each additional tree; (b) Rural Area on parcels greater than 0.5 hectares $50 for 11th tree + $25 each additional tree; (c) Development & large scale clearing (d) Tree replacement (e) Parcels with active farm use $200 base fee + $25 per tree; $425 per tree; $0 1 The Planning Dept. 2016 Business Plan includes a request to fund an Environmental Technician (Arborist). Page 7 The additional fee per tree to be removed will help the City of Maple Ridge recover costs on more complex sites where substantial tree removal is taking place and additional municipal resources are required to carry out site visits, review information and coordinate consultants, and carry out enforcement duties. A City Arborist position will be funded through the proposed tree permit fees. The City will likely reduce previous costs associated with tree cutting by having a full time City Arborist. A City Arborist can help implement, monitor, and enforce the Tree Protection and Management Bylaw. The previous Tree Bylaw emphasized a reactive approach to tree cutting with minimal technical assistance, supervision and enforcement capability which resulted in increased costs to the City from safety concerns and liability issues, enforcement works, and staff time attempting to clean up after the damage had been done. The proposed permit fee structure will likely reduce the number of enforcement calls, liability issues, and impacts that occurred in previous years. Therefore, Maple Ridge Development Application Fee Bylaw No. 5949-2001 has been amended to reflect the new fees as shown in Appendix C. It is recommended that the Development Application Fee Amending Bylaw No. 7192-2015 be given first, second and third Readings. TABLE 2. Summary of Tree Protection and Management Bylaw Changes Bylaw Section Previous Bylaw Application Tree Protection & Mgmt Bylaw Application Urban Area only on lots larger Trees > 20 cm dbh; than 1 acre; or large enough All urban and rural lands; to subdivide; both development and non-Watercourse areas up to development lands except where 15m; exemptions apply Steep slopes over 30%. Exemptions First 3 tree removals on urban All tree removals require a permit lots require no tree permit; except where exemptions apply: Exemptions urban lots< 1 ~ trees <20cm dbh width; acre; ~ hazard, dead or dying trees; Exemptions for rural lots; ~ trees within 2 m of structures; Exemptions for development; ~ hedges, alders & cottonwoods with some parameters ~ up to 10 permit trees/yr on rural lots if >0.5ha, trees< 70cm, and lot must meet 30% canopy cover. Permit No criteria to refuse permit; Circumstances listed under which tree Requirements No qualifications required for cutting permit will be issued or denied; safety and knowledge of work Qualifications for work to be performed Page 8 Replacements Only required if violation i.e. Replacements required on all sites, if removals in a watercourse less than 16 trees per acre (or setback or on steep slopes or equivalent) remain on parcel; unpermitted removals Cash in lieu option if unable to accommodate replacements; Security Deposits for large scale cutting; Tree No requirements to protect or ~ Protection criteria for Significant Protection retain trees on development Trees > 70 cm DBH where possible; sites or non development ~ Heritage Trees on Shady Lane sites; Heritage protection for ROW; trees on Shady Lane road ~ Retention Plans for trees along the ROW; perimeter of lots and low impact development requirements; ~ Protection requirements to ensure temporary protection of trees from damage during construction period; ~ Protection areas required for developers with re-planting zones. Hazardous No requirements to manage ~ Requirement for professional Trees for hazard trees on hazard tree assessments to be development sites or consider completed before and after impacts to adjacent property. development activity completed; ~ Requirements to consider impacts including wind firm edges. Tree No requirements Requirement for developers, builders Management and large scale clearing applicants to Plan consider how to mitigate the impacts of tree cutting both on site & off site; Tree retention plan and Tree Replacement plans are required; Requirements for site supervisor, coordination by Forester or Arborist. Page 9 NEXT STEPS: A brief summary of the next steps and recommendations • Ongoing Review of Tree Management Bylaw The proposed Bylaw will require a review with Mayor and Council in 2016 to address any potential issues, resource requirements, and revisions that might need to occur. • Clarify Communications Responsibilities & Outreach For Stakeholders Further clarification on Tree Bylaw procedures, requirements, and best practices will be needed-for community stakeholders which can be achieved through various mechanisms including development of educational and outreach materials on the Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 with the assistance of the municipal website, front counter handouts, building forum presentations, and updates to development package information checklists. • Amend Maple Ridge Ticketing Bylaw and Permit Fee Bylaw It is recommended that Maple Ridge Ticket Information Amending Bylaw No. 7191-2015and Maple Ridge Development Application Fee Amending Bylaw No. 7192-2015 be amended to reflect the proposed changes to the Tree Protection and Management Bylaw 7133-2015. Details on the proposed amendments to these Bylaws are included in the Appendices. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the City of Maple Ridge's OCP objectives and policies in addition to feedback from Council and the broader community stakeholders, there is a need for a more comprehensive, effective, and suitable Tree Protection and Management Bylaw for the City of Maple Ridge. The proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No.7133-2015 will result in the following improvements: • Legislative clarity and consistency with requirements of senior environmental agencies as well as municipal OCP objectives, bylaws, and best practices; • Improved regulatory framework that focuses on pro-active protection, responsible management, and replacement requirements for new developments, clearcutting applications, large scale tree removal and for all other tree permit applicants; • Comprehensive and flexible permit framework for dealing with tree protection, management, and replacement issues in urban, suburban, and rural areas; • Greater consideration of services and benefits associated with tree canopy cover including minimum tree canopy cover targets and replacement requirements; • Improved supervision, coordination, & monitoring by professional consultants; • Greater flexibility and cost recovery opportunities for permit application fees; and • Greater strength and clarity with respect to enforcement measures. Page 10 Therefore, it is recommended that the proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No. 7133 -2015 be granted first, second, and third readings. "Original signed by Rod Stott" Prepared by: Rod Stott, Environmental Planner "Original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning "Original signed by Frank Quinn" Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A. Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 Appendix B. Maple Ridge Ticket Information Amending Bylaw No. 7191-2015 Appendix C. Maple Ridge Development Application Fee Amending Bylaw No. 7192-2015 Page 11 APPENDIX E City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read and Members of Council MEETING DATE: November 14, 2017 FROM: SUBJECT: FILE NO: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Maple Ridge Tree Protection and Management Bylaw Update First, Second and Third Reading Maple Ridge Tree Protection Amending Bylaw No. 7314-2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On January 12 2016, Council adopted the Tree Protection and Management Bylaw (7133-2015). As a component of the adoption, and consistent with City practice, staff were to monitor the Tree Bylaw for a one year period, and then prepare an update report for Council's consideration. Since that time, the Planning Department has collected, monitored, and evaluated information regarding the new regulation for Council's consideration. This report discusses the findings over the past year including a summary of successes, challenges, and financial implications. Having completed the review, it is concluded that the Tree Protection and Management Bylaw has been largely successful to date and no significant issues have arisen with the application of the Bylaw. However, some minor administrative amendments to improve clarification and efficiencies are recommended. Tree Protection Amending Bylaw 7314-2017 has been prepared for Council's review and recommended that Council grant 15t, 2nd, and 3rd Readings. Please refer to proposed Bylaw Amendments shown in Appendix A along with a more detailed rationale and explanation for the changes in the Bylaw which can be found in Appendix B. RECOMMENDATION: That Tree Protection Amending Bylaw No. 7314-2017 be given first, second, and third readings. 1 1. BACKGROUND a) Summary of Tree Protection Bylaw Implementation 2016/2017 Overall, there were a number of changes associated with the implementation of the new 2016 -2017 Tree Protection and Management Bylaw (Tree Bylaw) including: • New expanded tree protection requirements; • Requirements for tree inventory and assessment reports; • Requirements for site supervision for clearing, hazard mgmt. and monitoring; • The introduction of tree replacement requirements to achieve tree canopy cover targets; • Stronger enforcement and compliance measures for urban and rural areas. The following section of this report discusses the feedback received since the adoption of the Bylaw. 2. DISCUSSION: Feedback during the past year since the adoption of the Tree Bylaw from tree permit stakeholders and internal review by staff members helped identify a number of minor changes and amendments recommended to help improve clarification, efficiencies, and effectiveness of the Tree Bylaw. The following section of the report provides a brief summary of key challenges as well as successes/opportunities that arose over the past year with the implementation of the new Tree Bylaw. These findings are listed below in no specific order: Challenges/Gaps: • Larger number of tree permits. There were over 480 tree permits issued between February 2016 and up to the beginning of June 2017 compared with the dozen permits issued on an annual basis in previous years before the adoption of the current Tree Bylaw. This does not include the additional hundreds of tree permit inquiries, tree enforcement and compliance calls, hazard tree inspections, and other tree management related duties handled by the Environment Section. As expected, there were significant increased demands on the environmental section resources however the additional staff person approved by Council made it possible to meet these demands and the Environment Section was able to carry out its other environmental duties. • Coordination of stakeholders & development of new tree permit approval processes. The implementation period over the past year required setting up and rolling out a number of new tree permitting processes. This included development of separate tree permit processes and procedures for zoning and subdivision applications, in addition to building permits and non development related applications. It required internal and external coordination with professionals of record, various municipal departments, and the general public. • There is ongoing demand for outreach, training, and awareness for new developers, builders, tree experts/contractors and homeowners on municipal tree bylaw requirements and processes. Raising awareness about new processes, requirements, and standards was achieved through a variety of mechanisms. This included setting up information sessions at builder/developer forums, creation of tree bylaw handouts, setting up new municipal online website information, carrying out site visits and assisting with front counter and phone inquiries. In general, there are between 30 to 50 or more inquiries per day related to tree permit questions, coordination of information, and dealing with public concerns that are being handled by staff. Ongoing outreach and assistance by staff persons is helping to raise awareness across the municipality amongst various stakeholders and new citizens. 2 r • Land use density. In historical and newer proposed densely populated areas within the municipality (i.e. town centre area or growth areas) it is understandably more challenging to protect, manage, and replace trees because of the smaller lot sizes and/or the larger impervious footprint expectations associated with proposed building structures, parking, and infrastructure required on site. Ongoing consideration for green infrastructure opportunities, including urban forest hubs and corridors, street trees, and green roofs will be required. • Leading by example. There were some comments by some applicants that the current Tree Bylaw doesn't include requirements for retention or replacement trees where clearing is taking place on municipal lands by the City. Development of municipal owned lands for the purpose of resale requires adherence to the Tree Bylaw requirements. Capital projects for Parks, Operations, and Engineering Departments also incorporate tree retention and replacement measures where possible within plans and contractual agreements. Routine operations management and maintenance works are currently exempt from tree replacement requirements. This includes routine upgrades and regular maintenance for infrastructure/utilities management, emergency works, and servicing works. However, to help offset some of the trees that occasionally need to be removed, the current Operations Dept. Business Plan also includes an incremental package to help fund a tree replacement program to help offset some of the clearing that is required on an annual basis. Opportunities/Successes: • Positive consultation efforts. Staff have been able to meet and speak with developers, builders, homeowners, and the general public about how the tree protection bylaw works and provide technical assistance. There have been opportunities to raise awareness about the importance of protecting significant trees, how to manage trees on private properties, and about the benefits trees provide. These discussions resulted in the retention of many trees that were proposed for removal. • Encouraging better tree expertise, supervision and practices. The new Tree Bylaw has helped improve professional standards, best management practices, and improved relations with local tree cutting companies. There has been positive feedback and support from tree professionals regarding the City's efforts in creating more pro-active site management requirements and the establishment of tree canopy targets. • Increasing tree conservation ethic. Constructive feedback and calls from development stakeholders, tree professionals, and members of the general public keep municipal staff informed about any ongoing issues/concerns related to poor tree management practices or non-compliance concerns. A shift in how people view trees and tree protection helps to achieve overall Tree Bylaw urban forest management objectives. There are quite a few examples where tree permit applicants chose to retain some of the trees on their properties that were originally slated for removal because they began to understand the various benefits and services that were being provided by the trees on site after speaking with municipal staff persons. • Ongoing monitoring & feedback on bylaw from tree permit applicants, tree experts and contractors, homeowners, and members of the general public over the past year helped to identify strengths and weaknesses of the bylaw; • Opportunity to review efficiencies, fiscal support & outcomes. Turn around times for issuance of tree permits generally ranges from two to five days depending on the amount of information provided, the complexity of the site and application, as well as the ongoing work demands. Up until June of 2017, the City of Maple Ridge has been able to generate over $95,000 in revenue over the past year from tree permit fees to help support staff resources. It has also generated over $65,000 in City Green Funds to assist the City in reaching tree replanting goals and education programs. 3 3. GENERAL TRENDS AND STATISTICS The stats provide an overall picture and summary of recent trends. Tree Permits Issued Over Past Year Feb 2016/June 2017 Total Number of Tree Permits Issued 485 Urban 372 Rural 87 ALR Lands 26 Subdivision* 25 Building Permit 72 Hazard Inquiry 22 Personal Property Requests 360 Violations 6 * There are still a large number of development applications that are active which require tree permits to be issued and approved. Final approval of tree permits for larger scale development typically occurs once final reading for Zoning applications or environmental DPs are ready to be approved. In the previous years before the adoption of the current Tree Bylaw, there were on average only a dozen (12) tree cutting permits issued per year such as back in 2013/2014. There were 162 tree permits issued under the interim Tree Bylaw period in 2015/16. This past year 2016/17 there were over 480 tree permits issued up until the beginning of June 2017. An additional environmental 'arborist' staff position was created which has been critical for the successful implementation of the new Tree Bylaw given the increasing number of permits being reviewed. As stated, this position is funded through the tree permit revenue. Overall there were far more tree permits being issued, reviewed, and approved this past 2016/17 year along with greater tree protection, management, and replacement requirements for different types of applicants and development activity types in both urban and rural areas. The number of tree permits being issued this year however does not necessarily mean there was a larger number of trees being cut than in previous years. Previous to this new Tree Bylaw, there was no requirement for developers, builders, residents in rural areas, or homeowners in urban areas with smaller properties to go through any kind of permit process with the City. Given the limited regulations and Bylaw requirements from the previous Tree Bylaw, it was difficult to collect relevant tree data or statistics for previous years. Tree Cutting Statistics For Past Year 2016/2017 Total# of Permit Trees Cut 1800 Total # of Permit Trees Replaced 978 Total # Significant Trees 191 Proposed to be Cut Total # Significant Trees Cut 157 Permit Trees Denied on Record 96 It is important to note that the total number of trees cut does not reflect the total number of trees and tree permits denied. It also doesn't reflect the fact that most of the trees cut were not significant in size and in many cases were considered unhealthy or a potential danger to future 4 residents. Given the opportunity for staff to work with permit holders, there was an opportunity to retain a lot of trees. There was a significant amount of additional trees that were originally identified for removal that were protected on site through staff education & outreach with property owners & contractors. On development sites, many permit sized trees were retained or protected under the current Tree Bylaw because of requirements for retention of a certain percentage of significant sized trees on site and the protection of permit trees around the perimeters of development sites. The Tree Bylaw also continues to allow rural residents to cut at least 10 permit sized trees per year in order to carry out regular annual maintenance on their properties, not including significant sized trees or trees within protected areas. Comparison of Tree Permit Fees 2015/2016 2016/2017 $26,512 Tree Permit fees $95,000 Tree Permit fees $0 -No tree replacementfund $65,000 City Green Fund The past year required a number of new financial processes and procedures to be set up for the new Tree Protection Bylaw. This included procedures for different types of development, tree clearing, and for tree replacement requirements. It also required new fiscal processes, for implementing new enforcement and compliance regulations, and for dealing with security deposits related to responsible management of protected trees on larger development sites. In the first few months, some of the tree bylaw requirements and processes for specific development activities and development permits took a bit of time to implement with consideration for older development applications. In some cases, there were large scale development applications that required larger amounts of tree clearing to take place on site in a phased approach, and the permit fees for some of these applications have not yet been collected in full by the City until the final approval of all the phases in these developments. Therefore some of these tree clearing permit fees on active developments still remain outstanding. Description and Rationale for Proposed Tree Bylaw Amendments To reduce redundancy and improve efficiencies and clarity on the existing Tree Bylaw, some administrative changes are recommended. The details of the recommended changes are found in Appendices B. A summary of the rationale for the proposed changes is provided below in bullet points for the sake of brevity and clarity: Section 3. Definitions: a) ADD City Tree -any tree of any size located on City owned property, including Park, boulevard and Rights of Way Rationale: this definition will clarify that trees on City property cannot be cut or removed without municipal approval by City Arborist including consideration for replacement trees. b) AMEND Permit Tree -means a tree that is 20 centimetres DBH or greater, and any size tree in a Conservation Area or on City owned property Rationale: this addition clarifies that trees on these locations do not have a size requirement. 5 l c) ADD TO Significant Tree -not including Cottonwood or Alder species outside of Conservation Areas Rationale: this addition excludes certain species that can often be a problem when they get to a significant size and age. Section 5: Exemptions a) DELETE d) and AMEND e) to the following ... Cutting of no more than 10 trees, excluding alder and poplar species, in any twelve month period on parcel greater than half a hectare in the Rural Area; provided that there remains 40 trees per hectare over 20 cm DBH on the parcel; and the trees being cut are not over 70 cm DBH; and the removals are not for building or development purposes and not in a conservation area. Rationale: d) and e) are redundant and can be made into one point for clarification. b) AMEND f) The tree is a Hazard Tree or is dead Rationale: dead trees are not always hazardous, but still should be exempted from needing a permit. Section 6: Permits a) AMEND 6.3 An application for reconsideration must be made in writing to the City Clerk within thirty days of the date of letter of denial. Rationale: to ensure that there is a time when the file can be closed; and applicants do not come back months or years later to try to appeal a denial. b) ADD 6.11 A Permit application is valid for three months from date of application. If required information for the permit application has not been submitted within three months, the application will be closed. Rationale: to ensure that there is a time when a file will be completed or closed; and applicants do not sit for months or years with an open permit file. Section 9. 7 Replacement Trees a) AMEND 9.7 to "in the amount of $600 per Replacement Tree with a maximum of $17,000 to a maximum of $24,000 per hectare" Rationale: It costs the City $600 to plant a Street Tree for parts and labour; maximum equals 40 trees per ha X $600 per tree. The security should reflect actual costs in case the City has to do the work. Schedule 'B' Tree Management Plan Requirements a) AMEND 5 "If the proposed development does not retain a ratio of 40 Permit Trees per hectare within the Developable Area, then replacement trees are required. Replacement trees must be located across proposed lots to equal the 40 trees/ha for each lot, where possible. 6 Rationale: to prevent developments from planting replacement trees all in one area of the development and leaving the rest void of tree canopy. b} AMEND 7. Calculation of Security -Each tree to be planted or retained requires $600 security; not to exceed a total of $24,000 per hectare ... Rationale: to make the amount equal that of section 9. 7 Schedule "D" Application a} DELETE 'Cutting' from title Rationale: new title of Tree Permit Application; in order to encompass the idea that a Tree Permit not only covers cutting, but a/so protection and replacement planting requirements for development. b} DELETE #7 and #8 Rationale: they are not required for most residential applications and are covered in a Tree Management Plan for development applications. c} AMEND #9 to include a space beneath that will allow for a sketch right on the application form Schedule "E" Replacement Tree Criteria a} REMOVE table, Rationale: the table is confusing and inconsistent with the 40 trees/hectare target. b} ADD All trees removed from Conservation Areas require replacements. Trees removed from non-Conservation Areas require replacements or Cash in Lieu to achieve 40 trees/hectare ratio. c} Under Replacement Trees not required, DELETE: point 1. When the parcel is being actively used for agricultural uses -with farm status or with a proposed Farm Plan reviewed by the City; Rationale: agricultural properties can still have 40 trees/ha in the non-farm areas and the perimeters of the property. There has been strong voice in agricultural areas that are concerned about complete Joss of tree canopy affecting underground aquifer recharge, wind protection for trees on adjacentfarm lands, and land degradation (erosion) concerns due to Joss of trees. 7 4. INTER DEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS a} Inter Departmental There have been various internal meetings and discussions held with staff from the Planning, Parks, Building, Engineering, Operations Departments to discuss implications of the proposed updates to the Tree Bylaw. Overall, it is believed that the proposed amendments are going to lead to better efficiencies and certainty with respect to the existing processes and practices. b} Business Plan/Financial Implications: Public feedback has stressed the importance of staff continuing to carry out visit sites to assist with concerns and to help determine permit requirements. It was also identified that it is important to continue with timely permit review, and enforcement and compliance duties. Based on Tree Bylaw funds generated from the past year 2016/17, it is possible to support these components with the additional City Arborist position that was created to help carry out these implementation, outreach, and enforcement duties. Additional updates to the tree replacement costs will help reduce costs to the City for the purchase and implementation of the trees. There are no additional financial implications expected with these amendments to the Tree Bylaw. 5. CONCLUSIONS: The current Tree bylaw has helped create a more consistent and pro-active process for professionals resulting in responsible and standardized tree management practices on the ground. It has helped the City of Maple Ridge move effectively towards its tree protection and management policies and OCP objectives. It reflects the feedback received from the general public and permit stakeholders. The proposed recommendations and amendments are not expected to impact development potential; however, they are intended to improve clarity, efficiencies, and outcomes from the tree permit review process and for non-development permit applicants. In summary, the proposed amendments and updates will help to: • Facilitate efficiencies and integration of relevant information that in turn will reduce overall demands on staff time, municipal resources, and costs to taxpayers/stakeholders; • Improve clarification of existing bylaw definitions, regulatory requirements, processes, and exclusions; and • Update financial criteria and security requirements; • It will support improvements with respect to supervision and monitoring by tree experts and arborists overseeing development works. 8 l I To conclude, there remains through the proposed amendments to the Tree Bylaw an opportunity for some minor changes, updates, and amendments that can create additional efficiencies, reduce municipal costs, provide greater clarity for permit holders, and promote better integration of development requirements with tree management requirements. "Original signed by Rod Stott" Prepared by: Rodney Stott Environmental Planner "Original signed by Gail Szostek" Co-Prepared by: Gail Szostek Environmental Coordinator "Original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL., MCIP, RPP Director of Planning "Original signed by Frank Quinn" Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services "Original signed by Paul Gill" Concurrence: Paul Gill, CPA, CGA Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A - Tree Protectiong Amending Bylaw No. 7314-2017 Appendix B -Tree Protection and Management Bylaw 7133-2015 (highlighted changes) 9 MAPLE RIDGE ~: City of Maple Ridge TO: FROM: mapleridge.ca His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer MEETING DATE: April 2, 2019 FILE NO: MEETING: Council Workshop SUBJECT: Maple Ridge -Pitt Meadows Home Show Society Request for Additional Electrical Kiosks at the Albion Fairgrounds EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The attached report is scheduled to be on the next Council Meeting agenda for discussion and consideration of the recommendation, which includes that a contribution of up to $16,000 be authorized towards the installation cost for two electrical kiosks at the Albion Fairgrounds and that the Financial Plan Bylaw be amended to include up to $16,000 from Accumulated Surplus for this work. The Council Workshop forum provides an extended opportunity for Council to seek additional information if required, prior to decision-making. RECOMMENDATION: That the attachment to the April 2, 2019 Council Workshop report titled "Maple Ridge -Pitt Meadows Home Show Society Request for Additional Electrical Kiosks at the Albion Fairgrounds" be forwarded to the next Council Meeting. Approved by: Corporate Officer Attachment: • Maple Ridge -Pitt Meadows Home Show Society Request for Additional Electrical Kiosks at the Albion Fairgrounds -staff report dated April 2, 2019 Doc# 2105964 Page 1 of 1 4.4 TO: FROM: City of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer MEETING DATE: April 2, 2019 FILE NO: 2183348 MEETING: Council Workshop SUBJECT: Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Home Show Society Request for Additional Electrical Kiosks at the Albion Fairgrounds EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Home Show Society is requesting additional electrical kiosks at the Albion Fairgrounds to better support their food truck festival. The two electrical kiosks requested would be located in closer proximity to the food trucks which set up along the internal gravel roadway and may be of benefit for other events held at the Fairgrounds. This request is a priority for the Home Show and their desire is to have the electrical improvements complete in advance of their event held May 4th, 5th and 6th. With this in mind, the Home Show Society has obtained a quote from their preferred vendor for this work and is offering to fund twenty percent of the cost. A contribution from the City is requested to fund the balance of the work and staff recommends that a contribution of up to $16,000 towards the electrical installation costs be provided. RECOMMENDATION: That a contribution of up to $16,000 be authorized towards the installation cost for two electrical kiosks at the Albion Fairgrounds; and That the Financial Plan Bylaw be amended to include up to $16,000 from Accumulated Surplus for this work. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: In July 2018 Council supported an earlier request from the Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Home Show Society for municipally-funded improvements to the large grass main stage viewing area at the Albion Fairgrounds which would support the Home Show's Food Truck Festival when wet weather makes ground condition unfavourable and accepted the offer by the Home Show Board of Directors to contribute ten percent of the cost to a maximum of $10,000. Preliminary discussions suggested that these improvements which include the renovation of the large grass area in front of the main stage to a load bearing surface, relocation of drain lines, and the installation of hose bibs to provide for re-establishment of the grass would range in value from $85,000 to $120,000. At that time a funding source was not identified. Doc # 2183348 Page 1 of 3 In October 2018, staff advised Council that additional components were requested by other users of the site were included along with the Home Show's requested improvements and at that time Council deferred the work pending a report coming forth on the Albion Flats Land Use Study. More recently, the Home Show Society requested that Council consider an interim project that included two additional electrical kiosks to provide power to support food trucks that set up along the internal roadway and are offering to contribute up to twenty percent of the cost of this work. Further, as this is a priority for the Home Show, they have obtained a quote from their preferred vendor, as attached, in the amount of $19,500 for the electrical permit and kiosk installation. The two kiosk locations are shown on the attached map. While the quote notes that power would be pulled from the Fairground stage, a second option to pull power from the transformer is also being investigated with BC Hydro. This second option may result in some cost savings due to the shorter length of conduit and trenching work. The Home Show representative has advised that installation could potentially be completed by their contractor in advance of this year's Show. A contribution from the City is required to fund the balance of the requested electrical work. b) Desired Outcome: The desired outcome is to enhance the Albion Fairgrounds for the benefit of the Home Show and other major events that are hosted at this site. c) Citizen/Customer Implications: The Albion Fairgrounds hosts a number of community and special events, including the Home Show, throughout the year and improvements that support one event may also support other events held here. d) Interdepartmental Implications: The electrical improvements at the Fairgrounds are minor and not anticipated to be impacted by the outcomes of the Albion Flats Area planning process currently underway. Business Plan/Financial Implications: The estimated cost for two additional electrical kiosks is anticipated to be under $19,500 as indicated in the quote received by the Home Show. The Home Show Society Board of Directors is offering to contribute up to twenty percent of the cost for this work. Staff suggests that the kiosk installation work could be funded from Accumulated Surplus to a maximum amount of $16,000 with the Home Show providing the remaining funding. e) Alternatives: Council previously deferred the fairgrounds improvements pending a report coming forward on the Albion Flats Land Use Study. In the interim, an alternative is suggested to support the minor electrical improvements requested at this site and in time for this year's Home Show. Doc # 2183348 Page 2 of 3 CONCLUSION: The Home Show Society has made several significant improvements at the Albion Fairgrounds over the last few years that have enhanced the site for the benefit of a variety of events. The Home Show and other events held here would further benefit from the requested electrical improvements to support food truck services at this community park. Prepared by: Valoree ~ond, MBCSLA Acting Director of Parks & Facilities Reviewed by: s, Recreation & Culture Reviewed by: Concurrence: Attachments: (A) Home Show Location Map Doc # 2183348 Page3 of3 Google Maps f: ~ 'o*°."-"t\On °"f~OX \ ~~'"' · I -<.,)V~"fl I ~ l -5C> Q.n\f> \ !'\ e,QC.f\ 6\-o.nti" C> I'\ • t-1€~ 4V 1.:,-vL-1..>, .:7•J I n G oo g le fv1aps Imagery ©2019 Google, Map data ©2019 Google 20m ht tps://www.g oog le .com/ma ps/@4 9 .1931895, -122.5671708, 7 5m/data= ! 3m1 ! 1 e3 Page 1 o ------___ __,