Friday, 15 April 2011

The Mayor comes on board

Stop tree cutting for views: mayor

RoyalAveTrees032311-03.jpg

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.”






Thursday, 14 April 2011

MORE APPLICATIONS COMING UNDER 611

NEWS FROM CITY HALL

More applications coming forward for tree removal from city property to enhance peoples' views;

14376 Marine Drive
14220 Marine Drive
Royal and Cypress intersection.

Check these addresses out. Where will this destruction end? A barren and lonely place for those of us who care about our environment and our city.

Wednesday, 13 April 2011

READ POLICY 611

POLICY TITLE:
TREE MANAGEMENT ON CITY LANDS

Policy:
POLICY NUMBER: CITY OPERATIONS - 611June 28, 2010 Date of Last Amendment:2010-322 Historical Change:June 28, 2010
City policy is to retain trees on City lands where practical. However, residents may apply for the
trimming, pruning or removal of trees on City lands as outlined below. Applications are made to
the City’s Department of Engineering and Municipal Operations. Applications must be submitted
in the form of a completed application form, a signed and addressed letter from a property owner
that identifies the subject tree or trees, explains the nature of the request, i.e. trimming, pruning
or removal, and the rationale or reasons for the request.
1. The City will continue to manage trees on City lands:
(a) for the trimming and removal of trees for health reasons, such as thinning,
spacing, pruning and treatment of diseased trees;
(b) for the trimming, pruning or removal of trees for safety reasons such as
hazardous, dead or diseased trees that cannot be treated;
(c) for the trimming or removal of trees that interfere with visibility at
intersections, or pose a risk for damage to infrastructure such as water,
sanitary, storm, sidewalks, power lines, etc.;
(d) for the re-planting of trees; and
(e) for the removal and replanting of trees as part of a parks or right-of-way
(ROW) redevelopment plan.
Requests by residents for removal of a hazardous, dead or diseased tree on City lands
shall be made to the Department of Engineering and Municipal Operations. City staff or a
designated agent will assess the matter, advise Council of any significant trees proposed
for removal, and take appropriate action, including providing public notice, a minimum
of 2 weeks prior to removal. The City will not remove trees in contravention of the
Provincial Wildlife Act or Riparian Area Regulations.
City Operations Policy No. 611 – Tree Management on City Lands
Page
2
2. Residents who desire to trim, prune or remove a tree on City lands that has been assessed
as a healthy tree and that does not pose a hazard or risk to the public or private property
or infrastructure as determined by City staff or a designated agent, but where the
residents are requesting action, as examples, to enhance their view or to accommodate a
development proposal (rezoning, development permit, demolition permit, building
permit, or subdivision of land), are required to make their request by application to the
Department of Engineering and Municipal Operations. These requests will be assessed in
the same manner as proposals on private lands in accordance with City of White Rock
Bylaw No. 1831 as “Type 2” and “Type 3” applications, further outlined as follows:
(a) Type 2 Requests – concerns requests to trim, prune, or remove a healthy but
unwanted tree on City lands. Type 2 requests shall be in accordance with the
“Council Criteria for Type 2 Tree Removal Requests”. Potential reasons for
removal may be to either enhance their view, to eliminate unwanted dropping
of pitch, sap or branches from the tree that is creating a nuisance to their
property, or concerns that the tree is getting too big and could become a
potential hazard during a major storm event. Submission requirements and
approvals shall include:
i) Submission of written request in conjunction with a Tree Assessment
Report as defined in Bylaw No. 1831, including explanation of the
rationale for the request, photo’s as illustrations, and proposals and
commitment for the replanting and maintenance of replacement
trees. City staff may require submission of professional geotechnical
and hydrological assessments when deemed necessary, for example,
in steeply sloped areas where tree removal could result in the destabilization
of soils.
ii) Upon receipt of a Type 2 request, City staff will post temporary
signage at the trees and provide letters of notice to immediately
adjacent property owners; review and assess the request in
accordance with the criteria established by Council, advise the
applicant of the decision and their right to appeal the decision to
Council if rejected; advise Council of the request and the decision on
the request; and advise the immediately adjacent property owners of
their right to appeal on a decision for approval .
iii) Type 2 requests for the trimming, pruning or removal of a healthy
tree on City lands shall be reviewed and assessed by Staff in
accordance with the Council criteria for Type 2 Tree Removal
Requests, and forwarded to Council for final decision if an appeal is
received.
iv) Application fees, securities, proposals for cash-in-lieu, replacement
trees, tree protection, and inspection and assessment shall be as
outlined in Parts 7 to 10 in Bylaw No. 1831.
(b) Type 3 Requests – concerns requests to trim, prune or remove a healthy tree
on City lands adjacent to a property under application for rezoning,
development permit, demolition permit, building permit, or subdivision of
land. Submission requirements and approvals shall include:
City Operations Policy No. 611 – Tree Management on City Lands
Page
3
i) Submission of written request in conjunction with a Tree Assessment
Report as defined in Bylaw No. 1831, including explanation of the
rationale for the request, photo’s as illustrations, and proposals and
commitment for the replanting and maintenance of replacement
trees.
ii) Upon receipt of a Type 3 request, and a minimum of 2 weeks prior to
referral of the application to Council, City staff will advise Council
of the nature of the request, advise property owners within 25 metres
of the subject tree.
iii) Type 3 requests for the trimming, pruning or removal of a healthy
tree on City lands shall be reviewed by Staff or a designated agent in
conjunction with the development proposal and forwarded to
Council for decision simultaneous with the development proposal.
iv) Application fees, securities, proposals for cash-in-lieu, replacement
trees, tree protection, and inspection and assessment shall be as
outlined in Parts 7 to 10 in Bylaw No. 1831.
Following City approval of a Type 2 or Type 3 request, and following submission by
the applicant of the required replacement tree funds, City staff or a designated agent
will plant on City land the required number of replacement trees, and will trim, prune
or remove the subject tree on City land, within a reasonable period of time.
3. Council Criteria for Type 2 Tree Removal Requests on City Lands
1.
applicant must own property and/or reside within 25 metres of the tree (or at
least a portion of their property is located within 25 metres).
2.
considered for removal, the tree or trees must meet the following criteria:
(i) the tree is a nuisance and dropping pitch, sap, fruit or branches; or
(ii) the tree is getting large and mature and, although healthy, is generating
concern that it could become a hazard during a major storm event; or
(iii) the tree has been previously topped or inappropriately trimmed and
although still healthy is at future risk of failure; or
(iv) the tree is impeding views.
(c)
follows:
i. the City will post temporary signage at the tree to provide notice of the
proposal; and
ii. the City will mail or deliver letters to the property owners/residents
within 25 metres of the tree for Type 2 tree removal requests, with a
request for comments to be returned by a specified date prior to
consideration of the request.
Who Can Apply – Where the tree, or at 50% of the tree(s) is on City lands, theCriteria for Making Type 2 Tree Removal Requests – In order to beNotification Prior to Decision – The City will provide notification as
City Operations Policy No. 611 – Tree Management on City Lands
Page
4
(d)
relation to the following criteria:
(i) the topping of trees as defined in Bylaw No. 1831 is not permitted.
(ii) the proposed tree removal must not adversely impact privacy,
screening or shading for a neighboring property owner, unless that
they have no objections to the tree removal.
(iii) the “nuisance tree” criteria must be supported by sufficient evidence,
including photographs in order to determine the degree or type of
nuisance, where the accumulation of falling leaves or evergreen
needles only does not qualify as a nuisance.
(iv) Previously topped or inappropriately trimmed trees should be
considered for removal and replacement.
(e)
applicants, and to the property owners/residents within 25 metres of the tree
(f)
within 14 days of notification and shall be provided to:
(i) the applicants when their request has been denied;
(ii) property owners/residents within 25 metres of the tree when the
request for approval has been given.
The decision of Council on an appeal shall be final. No tree cutting will be
permitted until completion of the appeal period.
Criteria for Decision – Requests for Type 2 requests shall be reviewed inNotice of Decision – copies of the decision will be given to Council, to theAppeals – the opportunity to appeal the decision to Council shall be made

THE CORPORATION OF THE

CITY OF WHITE ROCK

Ultimatum

White Rock's 'ultimatum' leads to tree protest

IMG_0264.jpg

Two of three Royal Avenue trees are to be removed this week, a resident opposing the work has been told.


Doug Ellerbeck, whose 15140 Royal Ave. property abuts the city land on which the trees sit, told Peace Arch News that he and his wife, Karen, acquiesced to the work after they were “basically given an ultimatum” by White Rock city staff Thursday.


Ellerbeck said he was told if they accepted the offer by 4:30 p.m. Friday, workers would leave one of the trees in question and put in a hedge to help address privacy concerns. If they didn’t accept the offer, all three of the trees would be gone, with no promise of replacement, he said.


They agreed “under duress,” Ellerbeck said.


The trees – a flowering plum, a weeping cherry and a cedar – have been a source of neighbourhood contention for years, with some residents complaining their growth has all-but-obscured their views. Those residents sought permission last summer to have the trees removed at their own cost, a request that was initially denied because the Ellerbecks opposed it. The city’s tree bylaw stipulates a tree-removal application cannot be approved if any resident within 25 metres opposes it on the basis of an impact to their privacy, screening or shading of their property.


City council, however, voted unanimously in January to accept an appeal by the petitioners. In making the decision, council agreed the city “has an obligation… to preserve what people had when they came here.”


The Ellerbecks and others have repeatedly spoken out about the matter during question period in the weeks since.


Some believe the issue is connected to recent vandalism to Coun. Helen Fathers’ vehicles, as well as to tire damage discovered by a contractor hired to remove 24 hazardous trees in Maccaud Park.


Friday, about a dozen people gathered outside the Ellerbecks’ home to protest the removal of the Royal Avenue trees. They carried placards, spoke to passing motorists and collected signatures.


The effort at this point is more about getting the policy changed for the future, Ellerbeck said.


“Now it’s (policy) 611 that we have to attack,” he said. “It shouldn’t happen to anybody else.”


Neighbour Paul Wilkes – who, in 1998, joined the successful fight to save a decades-old tulip tree at Five Corners – agreed.


Wilkes said he hopes Friday’s demonstration raises awareness “that this policy is favouring people who maybe want to sell their house.”


Martin Drive resident Sally Graham joined the protest out of fear of a similar situation. She lives near mature Douglas firs that stand on city land and are within 25 metres of a proposed two-home development.


“I’m prepared for the worst to happen,” Graham said.


“I’m quite willing to go any lengths to get petitions going. It’s going to impact me quite dramatically.”


Ellerbeck said he is disappointed the city is proceeding with the work before concerns regarding the decision’s legality have been fully addressed. The expense of pursuing a court injunction to stop the work is “not feasible,” he added.


City manager Peggy Clark said Monday that council received a legal opinion on the matter March 8. Clark would not discuss the opinion, but said the scheduled work is a result of council’s Jan. 24 decision.

Update


It took 10 minutes, and the first of three small but contentious trees on Royal Avenue was cut down and fed into the chipper.


A tree-cutting crew arrived on the City of White Rock land at daybreak Wednesday to start what couldn't be done the day before, when police were called to the site to monitor a peaceful but determined effort to prevent the cutting of trees in the 15100-block of Royal.


The targeted trees had been at the centre of ongoing controversy that has heightened since White Rock council granted a request by some area residents to remove them. The residents had complained the trees were blocking their views, and made an official request to have them removed last summer.


As per stipulations in the city's tree bylaw adopted last year, the request was initially denied after one couple – Doug and Karen Ellerbeck, whose property abuts the land where the trees are – objected.


Council voted to reverse the decision Jan. 24.


Last week, the Ellerbecks said the city offered to remove just two of the three trees if they consented, or all three if they didn't.


On Tuesday, less than an hour after arriving to remove the cedar and plum trees, tree-cutters packed up their yellow 'caution' tape, orange pylons and chainsaws and moved on.


But White Rock city arbourist Aelicia Otto would not promise protester Paul Wilkes the workers wouldn't be back – possibly even later that afternoon.


"I can't make that assurrance," Otto told Wilkes.


Instead, they arrived the next morning at 7 a.m., managing to remove one tree before Wilkes, who lives next door to the property, blocked the work.


Wilkes had also stood his ground the day before after learning the tree-cutters were on the way.


Wednesday, he woke to the sound of chainsaws and raced outside, but was too late to save the cedar. As workers started cutting the plum, he grabbed onto the tree and refused to let go.


"I held onto it. I said, 'you're not touching it, so don't even try'," he told Peace Arch News.


While the Ellerbecks maintain their rights were violated by the January decision, they agreed "under duress" last week to accept the city's offer to retain one of the trees, replace a retaining wall and plant a hedge. It was the best of two options presented by the city, Doug Ellerbeck told PAN, describing the offer as "an ultimatum." The other option would have resulted in the loss of all three trees, he said.


About a dozen concerned residents and neighbours turned out to the site last Friday to protest and collect signatures on a petition.


Two, including Wilkes, returned Tuesday. Ellerbeck was on hand for the demonstration, but did not participate.


Wilkes told police – who were called to keep the peace – he would not step aside for the tree-cutters.


"No. They're not cutting them down," Wilkes said. "If they start up that chainsaw, they're going to have to go through me."


After the tree-cutters left, Wilkes told PAN he, too, would be back if the workers return to try and do the job they were hired to do.


Surrounded by a handful of supporters who pledged to help, he reiterated the commitment Wednesday morning. The remaining trees will be watched in shifts, he said.


Wilkes said the city allowing trees to be cut solely for views sets a "horrendous precedent." He is determined to keep fighting until the bylaw is either amended or revoked – a direction Ellerbeck also supports.


"This is a criminal policy which caters to people who have lots of money," Wilkes said.


He hinted that councillors will be reminded of the group's strong opposition to the bylaw at the March 21 council meeting.


"You might want to be at the meeting Monday night. It's going to be quite active," Wilkes said.





Brian Giebelhaus photo


Protesters Sally Graham and Paul Wilkes speak to officers in the 15100-block of Royal Avenue Tuesday. Police were called after the pair refused to move out of the way of tree cutters hired to remove two of three trees targeted because residents complained they obstruct their views

Policy review

White Rock tree policy to be reviewed
treepolicy.jpg

White Rock citizens will get another chance to voice their opinions on how city trees should be managed.


Council announced Monday that staff have been directed to review Council Policy 611 and bring forward recommendations for amendments.


The process, expected to take four to six weeks, will include public information meetings, city manager Peggy Clark told Peace Arch News.


The policy has been a source of contention since council voted in January to allow the removal of trees in the 15100-block of Royal Avenue, after residents complained they obscured their views.


Neighbours opposed to the move have been keeping watch to prevent the work – although workers did remove one tree last week – and turned out in force Monday to reiterate their stand.


Prior to the meeting, pink signs stating “Save Trees Axe Policy 611” were tied to two trees outside city hall. A number of people who spoke during question period held posters with similar messages.


The policy is “incomplete, unclear and fails to protect the city’s assets,” said Paul Wilkes, who lives next door to the property.


Doug Ellerbeck, whose property abuts the trees in question, asked councillors why a tree has been cut down if the policy is under review.


“It seems to me there’s something wrong with the policy and yet it’s still in the process of being implemented,” Ellerbeck said.


Clark told PAN after the meeting that the existing policy is being implemented because it is still in effect, just as the city’s sign bylaw continued to be enforced during its revision.


The direction to review the policy – made during a closed meeting March 8 – does not change decisions already made, she said.

Tree policy - bylaw?

 

Editor:


Re: White Rock tree policy to be reviewed, March 23.


A policy is not a bylaw, and the City of White Rock should know the difference – or perhaps they did.


A policy does not require a public hearing, whereas a bylaw does.


Was it intentional that the city did an end around its own tree-management bylaw, which requires residents to follow specific rules, but the policy gives the city to do otherwise? There is no provision for removal of trees in the city’s tree bylaw.


The city could save staff and its residents’ time by simply removing the policy from its books and following its own bylaw.


Phil Le Good, White Rock

Mud slides

Mudslide sends trees over White Rock tracks

MudSlide010911-01.jpg

A “surface slide” caused by heavy saturation on a slope in the north end of White Rock sent trees – some more than 30 feet in length – across a portion of train tracks early Thursday morning.


The slide occured around 12:30 a.m. March 31, about one mile north of the White Rock Museum and Archives, triggering a 48-hour moratorium on passenger trains and delaying four freight trains, according to Burlington Northern Sante Fe spokesperson Gus Melonas.


“Our crews were alerted by our signal system that there was a slide,” he said. “Mud, rock, debris came in contact with the outside of the track on the slope side.”


BNSF brought in a crane and personnel to remove the debris, and the line reopened Thursday at 5:30 a.m. Freight traffic has since resumed, Melonas noted at noon Thursday, though it is “running at a slower rate of speed as we monitor the conditions to ensure safety.”


Inspectors continued to observe activity on-site Thursday, and geotechnical engineers were surveying slopes in the area and beyond, Melonas said.


“We’re studying the various slope conditions all the way from Seattle to Vancouver.”


Melonas said the slide was caused by a “washout of the surface.”


“The debris that holds the roots was washed away due to the extensive weather that we’ve been experiencing this season,” he said, noting the area hasn’t experienced the number of slides that its neighbour to the south has. “This has been an extremely heavy year for slides in Washington State, between Seattle and Everett.”


Last winter, six slides were recorded along the Semiahmoo shoreline, causing Amtrak service to be cancelled a total of 10 days over a five-week period.

Bay Fantastic

RoyalTreeCut033111-07.jpg

Editor:


Re:  No olive branch for city, April 1.


Walking along Buena Vista Avenue a few days ago, and glancing at the lovely sight of the bay, I thought about all the trees that both the city and vandals have been removing in the last year or so. Shameful. Loss of nature is giving White Rock an austere appearance.


Arriving home, the Peace Arch News had arrived, and I was dismayed to see the front-page photo and article on the removal of a flowering plum tree from city property near Royal Avenue. One wonders who the gutless person was who waited till late at night to saw down the tree.


I sort of pitied the city manager to have all the angry residents arriving at her doorstep, bearing the dying branches of a beautiful flowering plum tree. Loss of trees means loss of birds. I’m not overly impressed with the city’s tree bylaw, and the suggestion it will increase the tree canopy in the long term. Balderdash. The city has once again caved into the big developers. I’ve seen other areas where mature trees are removed; the trees that are eventually planted are the type that, while they grow rapidly, are of a spindly nature. The trees are spaced out and have no character.


I am shocked the city allowed the removal of trees as they were deemed to interfere with residents’ views of the bay. How long do these people sit and look at the bay?


Money sure does talk; these wealthy people in big homes and condos in that area have been heard and heeded by council: “Hey, I don’t like it, lop off its head!”


Hope the jerk standing on his balcony with his camera, shouting jeers at the pro-tree folk, was getting his kicks.


People who love nature can be passionate. And thank God there are plenty of them around. And I applaud Coun. Helen Fathers for her comments, specifically, “We have no obligation whatever to create a view for anyone.”


The owners of the large homes and condos would be far healthier if they got up early, listened to the birds chirping in the trees outside their homes, had a light breakfast, got the pooch ready for its early morning walk and spent the next 30 to 60 minutes walking down the street and admiring the bay from Marine Drive.


The view in the early hours is fantastic from there, and the mutt is happy also. Could be a win-win situation.


Ruth Carrier, White Rock






Valuable assets



Let me first express  my sympathy and full support for the residents who tried in vain to prevent the two trees being cut down in the 15100-block of Royal Avenue, courtesy of the City of White Rock’s Policy 611.


To those who live on the north side of the street and supported such a move, not only has your view been improved but the value of your home has increased. With that should come in due course an increase in your property assessment notice from BC Assessment. Perhaps those who opposed the removal of the trees should notify BC Assessment of the new situation.


Presumably such a course of action would also be fully endorsed by the City of White Rock, as it will lead to an increase in tax revenues that they solely need.


Natural justice comes in many disguises.


Robin Harper, Surrey

No Olive Branch - City Hall

No olive branch, as trimmings brought to White Rock City Hall

RoyalTreeCut033111-04.jpg

The City of White Rock’s Policy 611 is being reviewed – but that didn’t save a flowering plum on city property in the 15100-block of Royal Avenue.


All that remained of the tree Thursday morning was sawn trunk sections and bunches of blossom-laden branches.


Neighbour Paul Wilkes, who had been one of those guarding the tree during working hours, said city workers must have come during the night to cut it down  – an action that resident Karen Ellerbeck, whose property abuts the contentious area, termed “cowardly.”


“They didn’t want to see the little old ladies who were sitting protecting the tree in the daytime,” she said.


Shortly afterwards, some 16 residents, bearing the remaining branches and blossoms, marched on city hall and stormed into the office of city manager Peggy Clark to voice their dismay.


City manager Peggy Clark gets visitorsClark, who told the residents that the city’s tree bylaw will increase the tree canopy in the long term, later told Peace Arch News that, under it, the city will be planting two trees somewhere in the city – as yet undetermined.


A bylaw-mandated tree bank will enable the planting of some 40 new trees this spring, she added.


The felled tree was one of three on the narrow hillside strip of city land that have been the centre of controversy since council voted in January to allow their removal as they were deemed to interfere with residents’ views of the bay.


Ellerbeck said she and her husband, Doug – who live on the south side of Royal – had maintained and pruned the trees for the some 24 years they had lived on the hillside; however, demands from neighbours in large houses and condos on the north side of the street – who wanted the trees removed – had been heeded by council, in spite of opposition by other residents.


Clark noted removal of the tree was part of a compromise agreed to by the Ellerbecks, in which a cedar and the flowering plum would be removed and a weeping cherry tree would remain on the property.


“That was the ultimatum I received – one tree or nothing,” Ellerbeck said.


“These trees aren’t my trees and they aren’t the city’s trees – they belong to everybody in White Rock. Three families have stolen them from the rest of White Rock.”


Not all residents were supportive of the protesters. A man standing on a Royal Avenue balcony with a camera shouted jeers at them as they made their way up the hill toward city hall.


Clark said following the confrontation in her office that she realizes the protesting residents are “very passionate people.”


“I understand that and respect that,” she said.


But while Policy 611 is under review, it is still in effect, Clark said, adding that city workers, still under the direction of council, had been forced to cut the tree down in the early hours of Thursday morning due to earlier “interference at the work site.”


Resident Susan Watkin told Clark she believes the policy is in contravention of White Rock’s Integrated Stormwater Management Plan and Environmental Strategic Plan.


“If we can’t rely on our governments to stand by their laws, we’re all going to be treated the same way,” she said after the protest, in which she also pleaded with city office staff for their support.


“This is a slippery slope. There should have been an opportunity to mediate this and bring it to a higher level, which would have inspired many people in the community to work together.”


Coun. Helen Fathers, who recently split with the Citizens For Positive Renewal-endorsed majority on council over this and other issues, reiterated to Peace Arch News that she opposes the “cutting of trees to create views.”


“I’m not proud to be a councillor in the City of White Rock today,” she said. “Policy 611 is divisive and it doesn’t take into consideration the whole of the community, which is greater than the sum of its parts.


“We have no obligation whatever to create a view for anyone.”