Stop tree cutting for views: mayor
The City of White Rock should not consider any more requests to remove trees from city land on the basis of improving citizens’ views while the policy that allows it is under review, Mayor Catherine Ferguson said this week.
Ferguson told Peace Arch News Thursday that she plans to make a notice of motion next week asking council to table the policy “until the amendments are brought back for review and reconsideration.”
“I do not want any more applications to come to council under Policy 611,” Ferguson said. “It’s clearly divisive to neighbours and it is not, in any way, building community.
“This policy is creating anxiety and divide.”
The issue of removing trees from city land on the basis of view preservation has been a contentious one since January, when council voted to allow the removal of three trees in the 15100-block of Royal Avenue after neighbours complained their view was blocked. Following negotiations – which residents Karen and Doug Ellerbeck described as an ultimatum – two of the three trees were targeted for removal.
The last of those trees came down overnight March 31 – despite neighbours’ efforts to block the work and council’s decision to review the policy.
City manager Peggy Clark confirmed this week that another three such applications have been received at city hall, including one on Wednesday. As Policy 611 is still in effect, they are continuing to move through the system, she said.
Coun. Al Campbell said he will not support Ferguson’s anticipated motion.
In January, Campbell supported the ability to remove trees for views. Protecting, enhancing and preserving views for residents and visitors was part of his campaign platform three years ago, he said Thursday, and that opinion hasn’t changed.
“My resolve is even greater, actually,” he said.
Campbell blamed neighbour tensions on Royal Avenue on former city officials not having dealt with the issue when it first arose 10 years ago.
“You can lay blame directly at the feet of the people that were in charge at the time that chose to do nothing,” he said. “You don’t have a council like that now.”
A draft of the revised policy is expected to come back to council next month, and to go to the public for comment before any changes.
Ferguson said revisions should include an amendment committing the city to regular maintenance and pruning of its trees. That step alone would naturally open view corridors and reduce the incidence of illegal pruning, she said.
Given the tensions created by the policy, tabling it would be “a smart and reasonable” step, she said. It needs to be put on hold until “we take a really hard look at the ramifications of not making changes to this policy and what exactly it is that we are trying to achieve.”
Marine Drive resident Stacey Wilson said she is concerned applications continue to be processed. She said she was notified April 8 of a request to remove five “very old” maples that shade her family’s property.
Taking out the trees would not only impact their privacy, but could affect slope stability, she said. On top of that, illegal “butchering” of the trees has strained neighbour relationships.
Whatever happens with the policy, Wilson said it is important the city enforces it.
“(Neighbours) have been illegally pruning and topping and sawing limbs off these city maples for three years,” Wilson said.
“There wouldn’t be this unhealthiness between us neighbours if (the city) would have dealt with it.”
“I’m big on having a consequence for your actions and I just feel that the city doesn’t do that.”
Karen Ellerbeck told Peace Arch News she can’t believe the city continues to move ahead with requests to cut trees for views. She noted a petition against Policy 611 has collected about 400 signatures so far, and said the concern is no longer solely about the trees that were cut two weeks ago.
“We’re talking about all the trees in White Rock,” Ellerbeck said.
At least one councillor agrees there needs to be a moratorium on the tree-removal applications.
Coun. Helen Fathers said she has heard from a number of residents who are concerned about the impact the policy will have if it continues unchecked.
She noted when she asked staff recently what the city would look like in 10 years if the policy doesn’t change, the response was “barren.”
Fathers said her own concerns extend to the fact the policy as it is written now does not prevent someone who lives next to a park from applying to have those trees removed.
She suggested provisions to have the city trim for views would be “a good start and a good compromise.”
