Our North Shore roots are in the trees
This big Western red cedar was recently cut down in my neighborhood in the City of North Vancouver. It did not require a permit to destroy. Photo: Heather Drugge
Braaap, braaap, zing ding ding ding. Oh, no. There’s the sound of another tree coming down. Birds circle the area, literally in a flap because their home is being destroyed. The tree is a large Western red cedar, perhaps over 100 years old. I cry for the birds, the tree and me. These days, walking the dog, I note that most of the big trees left in the hood are on public land—on city-owned boulevards or in parks. But there are still a few big cedars and firs that I would hate to see cut down. I decided to look into why some trees can go and others stay.
Expanding our urban forests
It's confusing. On the one hand, all three North Shore municipalities are monitoring our urban forest canopies and attempting to expand tree cover to decrease temperatures by providing shade and natural cooling. Trees also help sequester carbon, aid in stormwater management and soil retention on our steep landscapes, and prevent flooding and landslides. Aside from the physical benefits, the mental benefits have also been well-documented. On the other hand, we are being told that trees should not grow close to homes for fire safety reasons. On top of that, we are creating more housing for people, and many trees will be killed for new development.
So, which is most important: keeping our trees, being fire-smart, or increasing housing options? As with many public life questions, the answer is that all are important. We must make our communities more climate-resilient, safer, and affordable. It’s possible to achieve all three. Let’s delve into how trees are or are not protected across the shore.
We ‘protect’ our trees using different criteria
The key to preservation is the definition of ‘protected’ tree. Each municipality defines what constitutes a protected tree for public and private property. Across the shore, all trees on municipal land are protected and cannot be removed without a permit. On private land, the criteria for protection include size, species and location. All three municipal tree bylaws are pretty similar, except the City of North Vancouver. The city protects all trees of a lower diameter than in the Districts of North and West Van, but not on single-family or duplex lots where there is no tree protection at all unless in a streamside situation. The diagram below shows the differences.
Notable policy differences
The City of North Van, where I live, seems like an outlier with respect to its (non) protection of trees on single-family and duplex-zoned private lots. I hope this changes as the city moves forward with a new urban forest policy.
It’s super cool that the District of North Vancouver includes a category to protect old growth trees. What’s interesting about this is that it means there must be old growth within the municipal boundary.
Species protection
As the chart shows, we protect certain tree species. I guess that’s good. But the species listed in the chart below are not the trees I see around here. It’s probably why they are protected—because there aren’t any anymore. Go figure. Most of us recognize majestic Western red cedars mixed with towering Douglas firs, moss-shrouded broad-leaf maples, and lacey, dancing hemlocks as the species that define the Shore. Sure, the bluffs in West Van are notable for their arbutus forest. Pacific yew? I had to look it up. Lovely trees, and for sure, I am not against tree conservation efforts. Far from it. But maybe we could expand the species list to include the trees we actually have here right now? Before they are all gone. Within municipal limits, healthy, mature Western red cedars and Douglas firs are disappearing.
Development variances in aid of tree preservation
In the City of North Van, city officials reviewing a tree removal permit must consider whether issuing a development variance could avoid tree removal. This means that to preserve a tree, a building or access might be redesigned, given a variance that allows for a different building envelope. I can think of at least one location in the City of North Van where this may have happened: 21st and Eastern Avenue. Citizens rallied to secure protection for a giant Western red cedar in danger of being destroyed for a new development. I don’t see this requirement to consider a variance in either of North or West Van Districts’ bylaws. It’s a positive policy that can impact tree preservation, especially given that we are trying to build more multi-family and small-scale multi-unit housing.
Back to the big cedar in my hood that was cut down
As shown above, there are no protected trees on single-family and duplex private property in the city unless they are on a heritage register or covenanted. That explains why I don’t see many big trees left on private lots in my neighbourhood. It also explains how my neighbour could have legally removed their big cedar😭. Again, hopefully changes to protect large diameter trees on single-family and duplex zones will be included in the new urban forest policy coming forward to city council in May. Here’s a sample of mature trees in my immediate neighbourhood which can all be cut down at any time:
All of these trees, within a block or two of my place can be destroyed without permits.
photos: Heather Drugge
Permits to destroy protected trees
Even protected trees can be cut, but you need to get a permit. To get one, the tree needs to meet specific criteria. In all three municipalities, you can’t remove a protected tree to get a better view, reduce shade, or because a tree is ‘messy.’ There are only a few legitimate reasons why you can kill a protected tree:
Dead, dying, or hazardous
Directly interfering with utility wires or structure + pruning cannot address without irreparably harming the tree
Directly blocking or interfering with a sewer or drainage system
Blocks new development construction and mitigation measures are not possible
Wildfire risk *so far only in West Van, but I can guess this will become true in the other munis as they develop their own wildfire development permit area policies
Tree removal permit fees are not intended to dissuade people from removing protected trees because, presumably, the tree in question meets one of the five criteria in the bullet points above.
Replacement trees
To maintain and grow the tree canopy, all North Shore municipalities require us to plant replacement trees for each one removed. There are different numbers in each municipality, as detailed below. It’s interesting that the District of North Vancouver places a higher value on Western red cedars and Douglas firs than on other species.
Interestingly, the District of North Van treats cedars and firs as more desirable in their fee structure. When it comes to complete redevelopment, with sky-high land costs, even stiff fines for illegal tree removal don’t likely act as a strong enough incentive for retaining the big Western red cedars, Douglas fir trees and broad-leaf maples that define the Shore. That said, would any responsible developer consistently flout bylaws to incur hefty charges? It’s doubtful but not inconceivable.
The tension between urban development and tree preservation poses a challenge for North Shore municipalities. The importance of maintaining our urban forest canopies for environmental and community health is clear. In the City of North Vancouver, we need to adopt a more inclusive approach to tree protection, considering the rich biodiversity of our region and safeguarding the iconic species that define our landscape. It must be feasible to grow our communities while preserving the trees that contribute so much to our well-being.
If this article resonates with you and your values, please sign up for our mailing list. We're building a group of like-minded people who want to see the vision outlined on these pages.
