Archive for the ‘Heritage’ Category
3365 Commercial Drive at East 18th Avenue
A grove of seven Lawson cypress trees is the most visible issue posed by Cressey’s application to develop the site on the northwest corner of Commercial Drive at East 18th Avenue. The account that follows distills a variety of information sources on that magnificent grove of trees. To facilitate focused discussion, the many other trees on the site are not considered here.
1. The cypress grove is a major existing amenity in the heart of East Vancouver. It occupies a special and prominent location
At the actual geographic center of East Vancouver
Near the Cedar Cottage site that gave its name to the local area
Among the intersections of the unusual local street grid
Along a distinctive curve that connects Commercial to Victoria
Adjacent to Skytrain and highly visible to thousands daily
On an irregular narrow extension of property that allows for easy separation
from surrounding parcel development
2. Vancouver has suffered accelerated loss of tree canopy because of massive hasty redevelopment.
3. When compared with west side, East Vancouver is a clear poor cousin in the area of tree provision.
Throughout the refinements of the 3365 Commercial development proposal, the approach to retention of the prominent cypress grove has been consistently grudging, partial, insufficient, and ineffective. Careful examination of the record reveals that all of the cypress trees are under serious threat, with high likelihood that all will die quickly under the existing proposal.
1. A few glib words tossed around in Council chamber guarantee “absolutely” … nothing (Exhibit A).
2. The conditions set out in the report of the project arborist offer no substantial assurances (Exhibit G). The track record of tree destruction at the Avalon Dairy site shows how little the “planning” and Council approval matter to what actually happens — Avalon Tree Whack and Avalon Clearer Cut.
3. The project arborist has indicated on at least two occasions that the plan, in terms of longevity for the trees, amounts to little more than developer window dressing (Exhibit E). His professionalism and frankness is to be commended.
4. The City of Vancouver has thus far lacked the will to keep the healthy grove whole. City of Vancouver “exploration” has clearly neglected the public interest in favor of serving the developer on bended knee (Exhibit D).
Mr. King mentioned that staff are exploring retention of two additional trees in the stand which would reduce density.
5. From the outset, unfriendly developer Cressey has made clear its hope that those trees would just disappear (Exhibit H).
1. The staff presentation on 24 May 2016 identifies the six healthy trees that the developer would pretend to retain — with no guarantees about impacts of building modifications, excavation requirements, etc (Exhibit B).
2. A marked-up version of the arborist “retention” plan — better termed developer eradication plan — shows how a slight reduction of building footprint could allow for true healthy retention of the entire cypress grove (Exhibit F).
3. The City of Vancouver owns a crucial piece of land right beside the grove, land that the developer seeks to incorporate into the project. Rather than hand over that piece of land (owned since 1939) and walk away, while extracting yet more resources from an underserved local area, the City of Vancouver needs to negotiate and to use its leverage.
6. City-owned Lot at 1733 East 18th Avenue One of the five lots that comprise the subject site (the lot located at 1733 East 18th Avenue) has been owned by the City of Vancouver since 1939 and has always been vacant. The lot is 295.4 m2 (3,180 sq. ft.) in area, measures 18.2 m (60 ft.) x 16.1 m (53 ft.) and is located mid- block west of Commercial Drive (see Figure 2). The City lot represents nine percent of the total subject site area. The City has determined this relatively small lot is not required for infrastructure purposes nor is it suitable for additional community amenities for the area, particularly given the existing supply of park space and services in the area. The City has entered into an agreement with the applicant to sell the lot, but such purchase and sale is conditional on Council’s unfettered consideration and approval in principle of the land use matters reflected in this rezoning application. Policy Report — 11 April 2016 (Exhibit C) — Page 16
4. Since the City of Vancouver already owns 9% of the land, it should engage in a swap-and-sale deal to genuinely retain the full healthy grove as an ongoing public asset. The mappings cited in items 1 and 2 above make it clear that this is reasonable and possible. This would be done at no “cost” to the City of Vancouver, which could still extract a portion of the land value. The developer could also benefit from giving up a portion of the site that requires the expense of a greater amount of excavation. The developer’s problems of pretending to care for the trees and of needing to be monitored could also be reduced considerably.
Should these dealings with a favored developer mean that the local area only acquires yet more burden and loss, with zero true public benefit? New market rental for a few individuals does not constitute “public benefit” according to any reasonable use of the term.
• • • • • • • • • • •
Exhibits A – H
The following annotated extracts with source citations are presented in reverse chronological order.
A. Heather Deal / Yardley McNeill Exchange — 24 May 2016
B. Staff Presentation — CD-1 Rezoning — 24 May 2016
C. Policy Report — 11 April 2016
D. Urban Design Panel — 3 June 2015
E. Joseph Jones Comment on 21 May 2015 Open House — 1 June 2015
F. Tree Retention Plan of Arborist — 30 April 2014
G. Report from Arborist — 30 April 2014
H. Original Cressey Plan — 7 October 2013
Transcription from Council video record — 2:23:45 to 2:24:45
3. 3365 Commercial Dr & 1695-1775 East 18th
Um — you went through some numbers at the beginning — Can we go back again to the tree numbers — those large cedars, I think it’s cedars at the corner — Were those saved in the original plan? Because those are really significant.
With the original inquiry, no, they weren’t. When it came in for an application, they were five of the seven — There’s seven fifty-foot Lawson cypress trees, and two of them are within the building footprint for the rental building. The other five are outside of it, and those are proposed to be retained, in addition to a seventy-five foot tall western hemlock that’s off the northern property line.
Right. So it’s the ones right at the corner that — I’m looking at the air photos — and they’re the ones that from the street are the most significant. So those are being retained at this point?
And we can put that as an — as an absolute requirement?
B. Staff Presentation — CD-1 Rezoning — 24 May 2016
Existing Trees — Slide 15
Particularly relevant portions of the following extracts have been marked in boldface.
p. 3 The site is located at the interface between the Cedar Cottage neighbourhood and a major arterial route including the elevated Skytrain guide-way; as well as a number of significant specimen trees. With continuing dialogue with the community, the proposal has evolved through the application review process. If approved, the proposal will provide affordable rental and family housing in a well-located setting. The overall development concept would preserve a number of existing mature trees and establish an appropriate transition in scale and form along its East 18th Avenue frontage. p. 5 Several of the lots are large and over-grown with trees and bushes of varying degrees of health. Notable landscape elements include a cluster of large Lawson Cypress trees at the southeast corner of the site and a large Western Hemlock near the north property line. The ground elevation rises to the west and some sections of the site are below the grade level of East 18th Avenue. p. 8 The proposed rental apartment building is comprised of a six-storey block facing Commercial Drive and a 31⁄2-storey block fronting East 18th Avenue, linked by a three-storey glass-enclosed bridge element that contains the lobby on the main floor and corridors above. One level of underground parking is proposed with access from the low point along East 18th Avenue. Retention of a significant stand of five mature Lawson Cypress trees at the corner of the site near Commercial Drive and East 18th Avenue is proposed. If the application is approved along with the proposed conditions of enactment, a significant Western Hemlock tree that exists near the north property line will also be retained. As such, the built form has been sensitively shaped and arranged on the site in order to integrate with the existing mature landscaping. p. 9 The distance between the rental building and the closest neighbour to the west is 185 feet. The retention of a significant Western Hemlock tree in the rear of the subject site will provide a screening element, and in conjunction with the oblique views generated by the six-storey block (due to the Commercial Drive alignment), will result in limited over-look onto adjacent properties and an acceptable relationship with the context. p. 12-13 Tree Retention and New Landscaping As noted, the subject site is significantly vegetated and it contains a number of significant specimen trees. A certified report by a professional Arborist was submitted with the rezoning application. Staff have reviewed the report and confirmed that the subject site contains a total of 39 existing trees that are over 20 cm (about 8 inches) in caliper. Seven trees over 20 cm caliper exist within the City-owned street right-of-way (see Figure 7). The professional arborist has assessed all of the existing trees and has determined that the majority of these trees are in poor or declining health. Of the total of 46 trees inventoried, only 15 are considered to be healthy and can be expected to have a reasonable likelihood of longer-term survival. Many of the existing trees have suffered from lack of maintenance or neglect, some have been topped or have been improperly pruned and others suffer from infestation or disease. Several have multiple stems and are not considered high-value tree assets suitable for retention. The seven existing trees that are currently located within the public street right-of-way are not considered to be healthy enough to be safely retained and, with future development of sidewalks and curbs will be replaced with a double row of new street trees. Of the trees located within the five lots that comprise the subject site, 15 are deemed to be healthy enough that they could be retained based solely on their existing condition. The rezoning application proposes to retain six of the 15 existing on-site healthy trees (of the nine not being retained, four have multiple stems and are not considered to be sound candidates for retention, the remaining five are within the proposed building foot print). Those proposed for retention are some of the largest of the existing healthy trees within the subject site and include five of the 15 m (50 foot) tall Lawson Cypress trees that are prominent at the corner of Commercial Drive and East 18th Avenue as well as the 23 m (75 foot) tall Western Hemlock that is situated near the north property line. To retain the Western Hemlock, the underground parking as proposed in the rezoning application will need to be reconfigured (see conditions in Appendix B). As part of the application, a significant number of new trees would be planted across the subject site. A total of 81 new trees would be planted -- 54 new trees on the private property and 27 new street trees within the public road right-of-way. Along with the six existing mature trees to be retained, the total number of trees will be 87 which is 41 more trees than exist today (see Figure 7). p. 16 The preservation and re-use of the heritage house along with the retention of several large specimen trees is generally consistent with sustainability goals of the City. Through the conditions of this report, and in line with advice sought from the UDP regarding sustainability measures, staff are recommending conditions of approval that seek consideration of external shading devices on the south elevation of the rental building to mitigate solar gain. Additionally, the development of an extensive green roof on the 31⁄2-storey rental block is sought in order to improve the sustainability performance of the development. Appendix B. 3 of 12 16. Provision of a "Tree Management Plan". Note to Applicant: Provide a large scale tree plan that is separate from the landscape plan. The plan should clearly illustrate all trees to be removed and retained, including dimensioned tree protection barriers and important construction management directives drawn out of the arborist report(s) such as clearly illustrating the limit of excavation and footing design strategy (i.e. vertical shoring, shotcrete). ￼ Appendix B. 4 of 12 17. Provision of detailed architectural and landscape cross sections (minimum 1/4" inch scale) through tree protection zones, all proposed common open spaces and semi-private patio areas. Note to Applicant: In tree protection areas, the sections should illustrate and dimension the limit of excavation, the slab design and location, the soil profile, tree root ball, tree canopy and any associated landscaping. For private patios and amenity areas, illustrate and dimension planters on slab, planter sizes (inside dimension), soil, root ball, retaining walls, steps, patios and portions of the adjacent building, such as residential units or amenity rooms.
Relevant comment on trees from the Urban Design Panel review is reproduced below:
Yardley McNeill, Rezoning Planner:
This site is comprised of five lots, heavily wooded with a variety of specimen trees, most notably a cluster of seven large Lawson Cypress trees at the corner of East 18th Avenue and Commercial Drive and Western Hemlock along the north property line.
Colin King, Development Planner:
The site includes significant mature trees, including but not limited to the prominent stand at the corner of the site and two to the rear providing screening to adjacent 2-storey development.
The two trees in the courtyard area could be retained with minimal interruption of the current landscape proposal and deletion of five parking spaces since the current proposed application exceeds required parking. As well these trees have high visibility fr om the north along Commercial Drive.
The massing at the corner is a direct expression of the 6-storey height and has been pulled back to retain a stand of five mature trees. Mr. King mentioned that staff are exploring retention of two additional trees in the stand which would reduce density.
Jennifer Stamp, Landscape Architect, [for developer Cressey] further described the landscaping plans and mentioned that the existing trees currently land in the children’s play area which she feels can be easily incorporated as a play element. The existing stand on the corner will have a pathway for the public and some seating on the corner.
Urban Design Panel summary comment:
As well they thought there should be solar shading on the south façade although they noted that the existing trees would help somewhat in mitigating the solar gain.
What follows is the portion of comment directly relevant to trees as made by Joseph Jones to City of Vancouver on 1 June 2015 in formal response.
3. The retention of cypress trees at the corner is highly desirable. Extensive discussion with the project arborist at the open house underlies the following recommendations. As presently structured, the development adjacent to the retained trees will result in a root loss of approximately 30%, significantly impairing the longevity of the five trees proposed for retention. Therefore the physical structure fronting Commercial Drive should be modified to mitigate root loss and to enhance that area’s provision of water and nutrients. Slight additional setback of the building should be coupled with more extensive foundation setback to accommodate existing root structure. Cantilever with design to channel rainwater under the sheltered portion should provide a viable option, especially considering the large benefit already conferred on the developer in the form of requiring no commercial space on ground floor. As necessary to achieve this additional root space, commensurate reduction in underground parking would be acceptable. The existing grove of cypress trees amounts to a major amenity. Since absolutely nothing will be coming back to the neighborhood from this proposed development, impact on already enjoyed amenity should minimized as much as possible. 4. The weakest, smallest cypress should be removed immediately to enhance the viability of the remaining four. The arborist does not anticipate a healthy future for the runt. With slight additional setback, one additional tree to the north that is scheduled for removal could be retained.
Information reported from another person who talked to the arborist paints a grimmer picture: that adjacent excavation for underground parking would likely destroy the root system of the presumably “retained” trees within two years.
The graphic below is an extraction of the Lawson cypress grove area from the larger graphic that constitutes the overall arborist plan for tree eradication — since eradication is the net overall effect, that seems a more accurate term.
The portion of the proposed “building envelope” that needs to be eradicated is outlined in red. The two grove trees that would be retained are circled in green.
The arborist confirmed that all seven Lawson cypress in the grove rate as Normal in condition. The explanation of the rating scale on page 3 makes it clear that “normal” is an understatement, since the only higher category amounts to an exceptional status, in effect an A+ — a status that applies to none of the many trees on the property. Trees numbered 1651 and 1653 are proposed for removal because “in conflict with the proposed building envelope.” The obvious solution is to modify the proposed building envelope. It seems wrongheaded and malicious to impair the grove, when moderate additional setback could save the two additional trees and ensure a healthy root condition for the entire grove.
Section 5.0 Construction Guidelines on p. 18-21 assures “absolutely” nothing beyond observation and reporting. Consider what happened to significant trees at Avalon Dairy subsequent to approval of the report to Council. Essentially, the developer is routinely given a blank cheque to modify plans and to remove significant trees at will, with only pro forma “discussion” and “review” involved — and no consequences for deviating from what Council approved.
At the pre-application open house, Cressey presented plans that showed intent to wipe out the entire Lawson cypress grove at the corner.
Statements at Public Hearing on 3365 Commercial 24 May 2016
Below are reproduced the statements delivered at the public hearing by Joseph Jones as 8th registered speaker and Jeanette Jones as 9th registered speaker. For a separate account of the public hearing evening, see https://eyeonnorquay.wordpress.com/2016/05/26/gong-show/.
Map of Six IRP Sites 2012-2016 as Referenced in Statement of Joseph Jones
Despite multiple communications to various City of Vancouver authorities on Saturday 12 March 2016, treewhackers returned to the Avalon Dairy site on Monday 14 March 2016 to make irreversible their damage to the large fir tree. In a few hours, the crew did a hit and run. The short time span and the unfinished work make the “job” look like nothing but haste and spite. Even as lumber, the old tree has been wasted.
A local area resident offered up a cellphone photo of part of the text of what appears to be a permit dated 30 November 2015:
Pursuant to the protection of trees by-law, the following work is hereby authorized:
Removal of nine trees for development, including two City trees …
Sixty-four new site trees plus 10 street trees to be planted with …
Six site trees and three City trees to be retained and protected …
SUBSTANTIAL ARBORIST SUPERVISION REQUIRED DURING ANY WORK WITHIN … ZONES
The supposed permit enumerates some numbers of trees for removal and others for retention. That vague language would allow the whackers to take out any trees they feel like, since no specific trees are identified. If a traffic cop wrote you a ticket like that, do you think a traffic court would do anything but laugh and let you go? That seems to be the Vancouver approach to letting developers eradicate trees.
Here’s the telephone number that was displayed on the “permit”: 604-687-4741. So telephone the City of Vancouver and ask for specific descriptions of the “six site trees and three City trees to be retained and protected.” Two bets: (1) They can’t or won’t tell you, except maybe after a $500 FOI, if you’re lucky. (2) There will not be “six site trees and three City trees” left standing.
Be glad you are not a tree in the City of Vancouver. You have two feet. You can flee the chainsaw … provided you hear it coming.
Saturday morning, 12 March 2016, around 11:00 am. The phone rings. I hear from distressed neighbors of the Avalon Dairy development project that some “work crew” has just had a go at cutting down the huge old fir tree at the southeast corner of the site. Police have been on scene. The tree cutters have departed. I tweet out what I can on the situation right away. After lunch I go out to make an eyewitness inspection. Now it’s Saturday night. This feels like the opposite of a party.
Start with this summary photo of the scene:
The lower limbs of the tree have been whacked off and superficial slicing has been inflicted on the lower trunk. Whatever else may be the case, this does not look like a responsible or a professional approach to tree removal.
The irresponsibilities appear to have included
Failing to justify the activity by timely posting of a permit
Failing to inform local area residents of time and nature of anticipated work
Failing to put in place safe-area markers (tape, pylons, etc.)
Exposing objecting residents to physical danger (as a threat?) by continuing to cut and drop branches
Earlier tree cutting at the Avalon Dairy site was covered by Eye on Norquay on 18 December 2015 in the posting Avalon Clearcut. Review this extract from Conditions of Approval of the Form of Development (Appendix B, Page 2 of 10) in the report to Council:
At this point it is difficult to imagine that the developer and/or the City of Vancouver care to retain any of the trees that may have enhanced the developer case for heritage density bonus. This starts to look like a programmatic part of the City of Vancouver’s ongoing destruction of tree canopy in East Vancouver.
While on that theme, the heritage farmhouse building itself seem imperiled. A neighbor reports that the building survived an unsuccessful arson attempt in November 2015. Now the structure, with unnecessarily open windows, suffers exposure to weather — and perhaps provides easy access to a future arsonist. If the house happened to go up in flames, would the City of Vancouver impose any penalty on the developer? After all, the supposed heritage that generated the bonus would have gone up in smoke.
Let the following photos enable you to conduct your own site inspection. Start with this contributed photo of the large tree, as it used to be, on a much sunnier day:
Next, see mistreated house in background, with today’s tree damage in foreground.
View below is from east toward west. Notice how this site as developed will not line up with houses along the street in the distance.
View below is from west toward east. At this stage, it’s easy to imagine how much better off the neighborhood might have been if the developer had not succeeded in scamming extra density off of the old farmhouse.
View below is from northeast corner of site to the south.
Does this final photo below look like a professional approach to cutting down a big tree, or does it look like a hasty attempt to do real damage to a tree that someone has hopes of saving?
Following is the formal comment that we have made on the development application, based on the application, the materials presented at the open house, and discussion with the developer agents.
18 November 2015
The 18 November 2015 open house on the development proposed for the SE corner of East 34th Avenue displayed 3 panels selected from the 11 files already available on the City of Vancouver application web site:
Project Statistics, Context Plan, and Streetscape
The open house provided a useful opportunity to talk to developer Richard Wittstock and to assess the project.
At the heart of the proposal is B & K Grocery, a two-storey brick building that has stood on the corner for over 100 years. Redevelopment of the 41.5 x 88 ft site to an FSR of 1.33 in a total of 4 dwelling units and 1 retail unit would make economically feasible the in-place seismic upgrading and refurbishing of the B & K Grocery. The existing brick structure that faces East 34th Avenue would acquire an addition of a single-family unit on the east side. A second separated two-unit infill would be built to the south, facing Nanaimo Street.
In this particular case, the desirability of retaining an unusual, scarce, and prominent Norquay heritage building clearly outweighs significant concessions on density bonusing and parking requirements.
We commend both the scale and contrasting design shown in the “infill north” view (in Elevations for Heritage Building & Attached Townhouse). [Note: image appended below for easy reference]. It is encouraging to see new construction that shows such promise of enhancing the Norquay area.
Joseph and Jeanette Jones