If White Rock councillors had any doubts as to whether their recent decision to support the removal and replacement of three trees on Royal Avenue had rubbed anyone the wrong way, those doubts were quickly erased during Monday night’s question period.
Accusations that the Jan. 24 decision was made without proper consultation and was tainted by self-interest flew from the residents whose property abuts the trees in question. Additional criticism came from other neighbours who complained they weren’t consulted on the issue.
“I’m so angry at the way I’ve been treated by senior city staff and council, I can hardly speak,” said Karen Ellerbeck, whose home is closest to the trees. “Not once have city staff dealt with us.”
Council voted unanimously last month to accept an appeal by a group of Royal Avenue residents who wanted permission to address “incredible” growth of three trees – a flowering plum, a weeping cherry and a cedar – on city land in the 15100-block of Royal. The trees have slowly all-but-obscured their ocean views, they said.
Discussion at the time resulted in a consensus that council has “an obligation on the part of the city to preserve what people had when they came here.”
A decision to allow the trees’ removal and replacement was made, subject to a geotechnical assessment of the site and the petitioners footing the bill.
Ellerbeck and her husband, Doug, have lived at the property the trees abut for 23 years. They told council Monday they were shocked by the decision to remove them, particularly given that one of several residents involved in the removal petition has only lived in the area six months.
“What about my rights?” Doug Ellerbeck said, noting he was “astounded” to discover at the Jan. 24 meeting that information he had provided to city staff on the matter prior to the meeting had not been shared with council.
He accused senior staff of intentionally withholding the information – a claim city manager Peggy Clark later told Peace Arch News she would be looking into.
Others who spoke Monday included one neighbour who wanted to know why he wasn’t told the trees were to be cut. The resident also wanted to know if the roots would be completely removed and, “do you guys think this is fair, what you guys approved?”
Mayor Catherine Ferguson, who wasn’t at the Jan. 24 meeting, said only that council “made the best decision they could with the information they had at the time.”
South Surrey’s Don Pitcairn, a vocal opponent of past tree-cutting projects in the city, also weighed in on the issue, describing the situation as “bullying.” (One handmade sign left at the site states “Stop the bullies! Save the trees!”; another reads “The trees are the view.”)
Pitcairn said the trees in question are small and their removal will not drastically improve sightlines. Pitcairn also told council he has offered, if the trees are removed, to plant California redwoods on the properties of those opposed to the removal. The redwoods grow to 370 feet tall, he noted.
The issue was the first test of the city’s new tree policy and bylaw, which came into effect late last spring. In this case, council agreed to waive the stipulation that any tree-removal application cannot be approved if any resident within 25 metres opposes it on the basis of an impact to privacy, screening or shading of property.
Prior to the council meeting, at Monday’s governance and legislation committee meeting, Coun. Helen Fathers questioned if the document properly addresses the city’s authority regarding tree management on city lands.
“In reading the policy through many times, I just want to make sure we have done our due diligence, and to make sure we have authority,” Fathers said.
Clark said the policy is based on bylaw, and the bylaw was “gone over in detail” by the city’s lawyer.
“It is a legal document and we’ve done due diligence,” she said.
Ferguson noted she has heard comments from staff about the policy, and asked if there have been lessons since it took effect that could improve the policy. Clark said “probably not” from the Royal Avenue situation.
Council later gave unanimous support to recommendations from the city’s environment committee to make the tree bylaw city-wide; to be equitable to all residents; and to direct staff to prepare a report for the committee’s Feb. 15 meeting on the bylaw and policy that includes statistics regarding permits, enforcement and infractions.
They also supported a motion by Ferguson that staff also report on any recommendations and amendments they would suggest for improvements.
“What I would really like to know is, how is the bylaw working,” Ferguson said.
Karen Ellerbeck had no doubts it isn’t working. She predicted that if council continued to make decisions the same way they did in the Royal Avenue case, the definition of a nuclear family living on the city’s hillside would change – to include “two adults, 1.5 children and a lawyer.”
“Your butts are going to be sued,” she said.