Report of Key Findings and Recommendations
Re: City of Victoria’s Tree Removal Decision Process

Background:

Humboldt Tree Removal

An approximately 40 year-old white birch tree (“the Humboldt tree”) at the intersection of Humboldt and Government was cut down on January 28, 2019 to implement a complete redesign of the intersection. The redesign was scheduled as part of the implementation of the City of Victoria’s AAA Bicycle Network Plan.

When it became evident to the general public that the tree was slated for removal (with the posting of a Tree Removal Notice), there was a public outcry with pleas to the city to save it and, at the very least, to place a moratorium on its removal until alternatives could be fully explored.

The outcry was expressed in letters to City Council, letters to the editor, protest placards at the site, messages posted on the tree and the fence around it, media coverage and an on-line petition of over 1200 signatures (collected in a period of less than 3 days).

Attempts to obtain information from the city beyond its standard response, to find out what alternatives to tree removal were considered and why they were deemed unsuitable, went unanswered.

Notwithstanding the appeals to save the tree, the city cut down the Humboldt tree in the morning of January 28, 2019.

FOI Request

• On January 28, 2019, I submitted a request to the city, as a private citizen, to release information under the authority of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which covers municipalities. I felt that the residents of Victoria deserved a full explanation of why the tree was removed, what alternatives, if any, were considered and why no alternatives were deemed suitable.
• The purpose of this FOI request was not just to get answers regarding this specific tree, but to ensure full transparency and accountability by the city for any future decisions to remove any tree on municipal land.
• On March 22, 2019, I received a package of records from the city in response to my FOI request. On reviewing these documents, I submitted a number of additional questions on April 18, 2019 to clarify the meaning and content of some of these records. I received answers to my questions on July 23, 2019.
• A full review and analysis of these records and how they relate to statements made by the city (both staff and Council) to justify the tree removal is contained in Appendix 1. The actual package of information provided by the city on March 22, 2019, in response to my FOI request is contained in Appendix 2. Appendix 2 does not contain records of the city’s additional information provided in July and August 2019 as they proved difficult to assemble, but they can be provided on request.
• Based on my review and analysis of all records I received from the city, as well as documents publicly available, I have made a number of key findings concerning the City of Victoria’s decision-making processes and communications concerning the removal of this tree.
• I have also made a number of recommendations to the city to improve transparency and accountability in any future decisions by the city to remove trees. These recommendations are also intended to improve the city’s overall protection of trees on municipal land.
• My FOI request, indeed all my attempts to obtain information, the preparation of this report, the key findings and the recommendations I have made, are not just about one tree. Like  many residents of Victoria, I have watched and lamented the removal of so many trees in our city over the past few years and the Humboldt tree was one more in a continuously increasing list. However, its loss and, in particular, how our city representatives dealt with it, represents an opportunity, indeed a need, to examine our municipal processes when it comes to tree removals generally and to identify areas for improvement.
• Residents of Victoria should not have to rely on FOI requests to obtain information from the city about tree removals after the fact. It is my hope that these recommendations and the city’s co-operation in implementing them will improve the transparency and accountability which our residents and our trees deserve.

Key Findings:

1. Alternatives to Tree Removal:

The City of Victoria made repeated public assurances of having explored “a number of alternative designs” to avoid tree removal.

A review of available records shows this is not substantiated by the evidence. There were not a “number of alternatives”. Efforts to explore the sole alternative were minimal at best. Retention of the tree was never fully developed, never made it to the detailed design stage and never presented as an option.

• The sole record, in the city’s FOI response package, of any exploration of any alternative is in the form of a staff member’s rough “scratch notes” (her description) in November 2017 comparing an undefined “Full” and “Half” option. (This was later explained as “remove tree” and “retain tree” respectively.)
• Retention of the tree was never fully developed as an option. The above “Half” option was dismissed by staff with little development, analysis or documentation in favour of an “emerging concept” that did not include the tree. It was this and only this solution that was pursued through detailed design. No alternative to retain the tree was ever presented to the public as an option.
• In July 2019, city staff answered my additional questions by providing a document entitled “emerging concept & design rationale” indicating it included the above “half option” design.
  • This document features a large drawing of the emerging concept (without the tree). Included at the bottom of the document is a section on “design considerations” containing a small drawing that shows the intersection as it was with the tree. The only change to the status quo in this drawing appears to be the addition of two bike lanes.
  • This drawing is not presented as an alternative or as an option. It appears to be presented solely for comparison with the emerging concept (rating it as significantly inferior on all but one criteria (parking), including “trees”).
• The Mayor and City Council approved the proposed design in May 2018 based on a report by city staff entitled Report on Bicycle Network Design and Implementation Phase 1.
  • There is only one reference in the whole report to the tree’s removal: “The City will be removing two trees from the existing traffic island but the new design includes five new trees in the proposed plaza space.”
  • There are no references in the report to any alternatives to tree removal having been considered.
  • There is no evidence that the Mayor or any of the Councillors, in approving the proposed designs, made any inquiries as to the proposed tree removal or asked whether any alternatives had been considered. All graphics related to the Preferred Design Concept depict an absence of the Humboldt tree with no explanation for its removal.
• Days before the tree’s removal in January 2019, Councillor Charlayne Thornton-Joe e-mailed city staff, stating “I am not supportive of the removal of the tree on Government. Is there anything that can be done to save it?” Staff assured her, copying other Councillors, that they “tried very hard to keep the central intersection tree but had to compromise in order to design a safe intersection, that is affordable, and effective at serving the vehicle and pedestrian volumes, with a new cycle track”. However, no further information is provided or requested as to what those efforts were.
• The city’s communications continued to maintain that “a number of alternatives had been considered”.

2. Operational Requirements:

The City of Victoria stated publicly that the tree had to be removed because it was “the only way to ensure that operational needs were met”.

There is no evidence to support this. There is no definitive document listing the project’s operational requirements, let alone how they impacted the retention or removal of the tree. Design “considerations and factors” were vague and undefined and changed from one document to another.

• There are a number of documents that reference “operational requirements” or “operational needs” (mostly in letters explaining the need to remove the tree). However, they vary from document to document and are vague and undefined.
• In the “scratch notes”, mentioned above, the criteria used for comparing the two options are not defined as operational requirements but as design “considerations and factors”. These too are vague and undefined and it is unclear which criteria were determinative for the tree’s removal.
• There is no information or explanation provided as to how any of these factors mentioned, whether operational requirements or not, were evaluated, how priorities were determined and whether these factors could be achieved in different ways. Ratings are simply “high” “medium” or “low” (in the “scratch notes”) or determined by the lengths of bar graphs for comparison purposes (“emerging concept & design rationale”).
• The ratings in the “scratch notes” were performed by a team of 11 city staff. Although the City Parks Department oversees all trees on city property, only 2 staff were from Parks. There is no indication of who presented what views but the “scratch notes” indicate no disagreement on these ratings for the tree’s removal.
• Standard measures of evaluation such as a benefit/risk assessment, commonly used to evaluate options, do not appear to have been used by the city. The FOI materials indicate that a benefit/risk assessment was recommended by a retired forester to ensure a “prudent decision…to consider the relative merits of each design alternative”. However, the city appears to have ignored or rejected the advice.

3. Consultations:

City officials expressed surprise at the public outcry over the tree’s removal in the face of what is described as “detailed consultations over the past two years”.

However, there is no evidence that tree removal was an explicit element of such consultations. There is also no evidence of feedback having been solicited or recorded by the city.

Without explicit and full disclosure to the general public about the tree’s removal, and without specific feedback solicited or recorded, it is misleading to consider a redesign, predicated on the tree’s removal, as having broad public support.

• The Mayor and other city officials expressed surprise at the public outcry noting “detailed consultations over the past two years”. (CHEK TV, January 28, 2019).
• The City of Victoria’s Appendix Report on Engagement and Concept Designs contains no reference to the proposed Humboldt tree removal having been a component of public consultation. It contains no reference to any feedback solicited or provided, pro or con, to the Humboldt tree removal.

• None of the records provided in response to my FOI request contained any consultation material referencing the Humboldt tree removal although an explanation was added by staff to the “scratch notes” that “Both designs were shown to the public through consultation materials in fall 2017, with the preferred solution articulated.”
• I made a further request for clarification as to this statement, asking for a copy of any document containing “both designs…shown to the public”. Three months later, the city referenced a document entitled “emerging concept & design rationale”.
  • Explanations by staff indicate this document was “featured on the city’s website on-line survey (November 15, 2017 – January 15, 2018”. I was able to find it in the city’s Appendix Report on Engagement and Concept Designs on page 420.
  • The size of the drawing and written references to “design considerations” are very difficult to read on-line and could easily have been missed, let alone interpreted as information about the tree’s removal. The size and readability of the actual on-line survey is not known.
  • A description of this document has been provided above (under Operational Requirements). There is no indication in this document or elsewhere drawing attention to the tree removal or explicitly seeking feedback on that issue.
• By city staff’s admission, there were no consultation materials that dealt explicitly with the tree’s removal. This could explain why the city’s Engagement Report contains no references to feedback solicited or provided regarding the fate of the Humboldt tree.
• The Engagement Report also reveals that consultation was perhaps not as broadly public as it could have been, especially in earlier planning stages which focused on the “most impacted” and “directly affected” (i.e. businesses, service providers and residents). Later consultation did allow some broader community engagement (e.g. open houses, on-street interviews) and “key stakeholders” were invited to participate. However, tree removal was not a component of discussion and advocates for the protection of trees were not invited as key stakeholders at any stage.
• It is interesting to note that, based on the city’s figures in the Appendix Report on Engagement and Concept Designs, the total number of people consulted on the Humboldt intersection redesign over this two year period appears to be less than the 1200 people who signed the petition in less than three days.
• The lack of explicit information and materials on tree removals during consultations is especially disturbing given the city’s decision to “streamline” consultation as part of its plan to fast-track implementation of the AAA Bicycle Network Plan (announced February 2019). Consultation processes that have proven inadequate in protecting trees are likely to be even less effective when opportunities for community input and feedback are reduced even further.

4. Tree Removal Notice:

City officials, the Mayor and City Council knew that tree removal was a consequence of the implementation approved in May 2018.

There was no attempt made to inform the general public of the tree’s removal until a Tree Removal Notice was posted on or after October 31, 2018.

This was inadequate notice and effectively denied the general public the opportunity and right to be heard on the matter of the tree’s removal.

• Fencing was erected around the Humboldt tree some time in the fall of 2018. Many people took this as a measure to protect the tree from the adjacent property development and not as any sign of an impending tree removal.
• Documents reveal it was the construction company that reminded city staff in October 2018 that the tree had to be removed to build the redesign and that a tree removal notice needed to be posted. Staff responded that a 10 day notice would be posted. There are no records to indicate the actual date of posting the notice.
• At the time the Tree Removal Notice was posted, the surrounding fencing obscured visibility and access, making it difficult to read the content.
• For most of the general public, the date of posting Tree Removal Notice or later, (whenever they would have been able to read the notice) would have been their first opportunity to learn of the intended tree removal.
• The city’s usual 10 day notice, especially in combination with lack of full disclosure about the tree removal in reports and consultations, does not allow for any meaningful input from the public.
• Given the timing and upcoming holidays in this case, there was even less opportunity for the public to learn about the tree’s removal and express their concerns. Effectively, it was too late to provide any meaningful input into the decision to remove the tree.

5. Importance and Value of Tree(s):

The City of Victoria provided public expressions of understanding and concern for the importance and value of trees, including the Humboldt tree.

However, the evidence demonstrates a lack of understanding, indifference, and at times a wanton disregard, for this tree and trees in general. The City’s less than informative responses and, at times, their outright silence in the face of questions and opposition to the tree’s removal, also show an indifference to the people who advocated to save it.

• The city’s letters, in response to inquiries and efforts to save the tree, indicates the city “does not take any tree removal lightly”. They also provide assurances that the city “values and recognizes the importance of trees” in our community and to the environment.
• However, in the city’s various documents referencing design factors, trees are not consistently included as a “consideration/factor”. When they are considered, the analysis incorrectly rates the value of a 40 year old birch as significantly lower than replacement by young saplings.
• Drawings of the “emerging concept” and “preferred design” are also misleading because it shows replacement trees as identical in scale to the 40 year old birch that was removed. In actual fact, the replacement trees are no more than saplings and it will take many decades for them to provide the level of carbon sequestration, pollution absorption, shade and temperature control, bird habitation, aesthetic value and other benefits provided by the 40 year old birch.
• Later drawings of the redesign reduced these five replacement trees to three and the newly created plaza now contains only two saplings.
• City Council recently approved a funding increase of $1.368M over 2018 for staffing, operational costs and capital costs relating to initiatives to improve the city’s urban forest (e.g. the implementation of the 2013 Urban Forest Master Plan and the tree protection bylaw review and update).
• While this commitment is laudable, it does not, by itself, restore the confidence that has been eroded by the specific actions and omissions of city officials described in this report. The city needs to demonstrate a better understanding of the value of mature urban trees by doing a better job in its own projects to preserve and protect them.

Recommendations:

1. The City of Victoria needs to develop policy standards and guidelines, to which the city is held accountable, for the preservation and protection of healthy mature trees on municipal property.
2. Policy standards and guidelines need to include a requirement that the city demonstrate a clear and compelling need for any tree removal.
3. Policy standards and guidelines need to include measures to ensure that tree removal is a last resort, such as:
   • clear operational requirements defined for every project;
   • serious and meaningful development and evaluation of alternatives to tree removal;
   • use of commonly used benefit/risk assessments to evaluate all options;
   • criteria that demonstrate the importance and value of trees to the broader community and city as a whole; and
   • use of multi-disciplinary teams in the development and evaluation of alternatives that include independent urban tree experts.
4. The City of Victoria needs to provide full and explicit disclosure of any proposed or potential tree removal at the earliest opportunity and announce opportunities for meaningful consultation with the general public.
5. The City of Victoria needs to expand consultation beyond immediate residents and service providers to include the general public as “affected stakeholders”. Trees belong to and benefit all residents of Victoria and their preservation is a matter of broad public interest, not just those who live and work in an area targeted for tree removal.
6. The City of Victoria needs to create a tree advisory panel, similar to the current heritage advisory panel, to advise the city on matters concerning the preservation, protection or removal of healthy mature trees and to provide recommendations.
7. The City of Victoria needs to increase the notice period for Tree Removal Notices to allow meaningful input from the general public. Tree Removal Notices should be posted at the earliest opportunity when it is apparent to city staff that tree removal may be necessary and before any decision is made to remove the tree.
8. Tree Removal Notices need to provide information that a) describes the clear and compelling need for the tree’s removal and b) describes details of when and where members of the public can provide input and feedback to the City.
9. The City needs to involve tree advocacy organizations while acting on these recommendations.