How a lone blue spruce tied up Toronto councillors for nearly an hour -- and what that says about city hall

The final days of a spruce in a Weston backyard show why arguing over the fate of trees on private property takes up so much of councillors’ time.

Thestar.com
April 11, 2022
Jennifer Pagliaro

In a northwest neighbourhood of Toronto, a single Colorado blue spruce loomed over an unassuming backyard pool.

By some estimates, the spruce measured 51.5 cm in diameter and was older than most of us, here long before there was a Raptors or a SkyDome and certainly before the pool was dug.

“The Colorado spruce is notable for its beauty,” wrote horticulturalist Henry Teuscher about the species. Teuscher, who designed Montreal’s botanical gardens, described the spruce’s branches of “dark green or blueish green” needles with precision and awe, spreading out “more or less horizontally in very evenly spaced whorls.”

But to understand how this particular suburban spruce captured the attention of the government of the fourth-largest city in North America earlier this year, taking up 44 minutes of debate at a city hall wrestling with a deadly pandemic and historic financial crisis, you need to start at the root of the problem.

In this case, the actual roots in a backyard on John Street in Weston -- of a tree that was a nuisance and possible danger to some and “a valuable part of the urban forest” to others.

The fate of trees on private property is an evergreen area of contention at council -- it was the second-longest discussion topic at the March meeting after COVID-19 mask mandates, according to analysis by Star columnist Matt Elliott.

But should it be?

The way city hall deals with tree removals is in many ways a prime example of how it handles democratic issues out in the open, not behind caucus doors. Some say tree removals are better dealt with at a community level where differing urban and suburban values could be better reflected. Others would rather give expert city staff the authority to make the final decision on issues with a citywide impact and not leave things to local politics.

The life -- and death -- of any tree is dictated by the city bylaw that spells out what can be done with them on city-owned property and in residents’ backyards. It’s a detailed guide that’s also clear on the punishment for breaking the rules: fines between $500 and $100,000.
To remove a tree, residents must submit a detailed permit application to the city, and pay the fees. They also have to pay an arborist to provide a report to the city, create a landscape/replanting plan and supply photos.

The city’s forestry staff review the application, visit the tree in person and decide whether or not to issue a permit.

In this case, staff found the spruce was healthy and maintainable, and denied the removal.

But this blue spruce’s tale didn’t end there: the bylaw allows for the appeal of staff decisions.
The first step of the appeal -- the lower court, if you will, in these death row cases -- is the community council.

Councillors sit on one of four community councils in the city. These deal with everything from newly proposed developments to neighbour fence disputes -- and requests to remove trees on private property.

On Jan. 5, homeowner Andi Kasapi’s appeal of his request to remove the spruce landed on the Etobicoke York Community Council agenda.

A December 2021 report by city staff noted that Kasapi said the spruce was “destabilized because tree roots have been impacted by landscaping work that took place within (two metres) from the base of the tree.”

But the private arborist Kasapi hired had reported the tree in good condition and it was “unclear” if it was destabilized.

The city’s arborist found the tree was “healthy and maintainable” and asked Kasapi to provide more evidence about the tree being destabilized, but “none was received,” said the report.

Kasapi attended the meeting virtually, giving several reasons for wanting to remove the tree.

Think of this like the closing arguments in front of a jury -- except in this case, the city is representing the tree.

“The main reason why we’re trying to remove this tree is it’s outgrown the area,” Kasapi told the council.

“The shadow that it’s casting -- it’s now killing the trees on our neighbour’s side ... In addition, the needles that this tree is dropping -- it’s changing quite a bit the acidity of the soil, so gardening on both sides of our neighbours’ is causing a major issue as well.”

He went on to explain that under the tree is a play area for his young daughter: “It’s really not useful at this point, because it’s needles everywhere.”

Kasapi also said there were concerns about the branches encroaching on overhead wires and it being a risk to nearby structures, like a garden shed.

The tree’s roots were also causing a walkway to shift, leaving him to relevel the area to fix “tripping hazards.”

Kasapi stressed he would be more than happy to replace the tree -- but it would be an immature sapling compared to the blue spruce’s lush canopy.

Staff said five trees would be more appropriate, if the removal were allowed. That requirement could be met by a combination of on-site planting and cash in-lieu of planting that goes toward a reserve fund for tree planting across the city.

After Kasapi concluded, a forestry staffer told the community council that while all the concerns he raised were “reasonable,” under the bylaw they were not reasons to remove a healthy tree.

In its report, staff wrote that the tree “is a valuable part of the urban forest that provides numerous aesthetic, social and economic benefits to the property owner and local community.”

Increasing urban tree cover can “mitigate exposure to extreme heat events,” according to the report. “Toronto’s urban forest provides $55 million in environmental benefits every year including improved air quality through pollution removal, lower storm water management costs by reducing runoff, and carbon sequestration that lessens the impacts of climate change.”

The local councillor, Frances Nunziata, deferred the item to the next community council meeting to give her office time to speak to Kasapi about his application. Council agreed.

The tree’s fate would have to wait.

Coun. Frances Nunziata moved a motion in community council to allow the blue spruce to be removed without any replacement trees.

On Feb. 24, Nunziata told the reconvened community council she’d talked to Kasapi.
There was “severe damage” on a walkway as a result of the spruce’s roots, she said, and moved a motion to allow it to be removed -- killed -- without the replacement trees called for in the staff report.

Without debate, the council agreed.

But community councils do not have final say on the removal of trees -- that is left to city council, much like an appeal to a higher court, only in this case, it’s automatic.

The tree would have one final hearing.

On March 9, the spruce was again on the stand, this time in front of the entire city council.
As part of the appeal process, the last stop is at council, a citywide forum to debate both major policy issues like transit and smaller, neighbourhood items like tree removals.

Community council items that come to council allow members from outside that area to act as a check on how citywide policies are being implemented and weigh in on issues like, in this case, environmental protection.

Gord Perks, councillor for Parkdale-High Park and previously an environmental activist, asked council to debate the fate of the spruce in York South-Weston. He asked staff to explain why the application said the tree was destabilized, but they found no evidence of it.

After questions from other councillors, Perks added a motion requiring five trees as replacement if the blue spruce was removed -- in line with the earlier staff recommendations.

Nunziata urged the other councillors to vote against Perks’s motion. She added one of her own requiring only a single tree as replacement -- in line with Kasapi’s proposal.

“The yard isn’t big enough for five trees,” she said.

In the end, after 44 minutes in front of public bodies and an uncalculated amount of staff time, no one voted to save the Colorado blue spruce.

In fact, the main debate was over what the felled tree’s legacy would be -- one sapling or five.

Nunziata’s motion failed on a 12-12 tie. Perks’s motion to require five trees was approved 17-8.

City staff later told the Star that the cost per tree is $583, if paying cash in lieu of planting.

Coun. Gord Perks settled for getting five saplings to replace the spruce over possibly getting defeated in an attempt at saving the tree.

The Star asked Nunziata recently about the March vote and whether she found the lengthy process frustrating.

She rejected the suggestion. “It’s a process that’s been in place for a while,” she said. “That’s fine with me.”

Perks -- who defends the time council spends debating items in public as a marker of good democratic government -- told the Star he thought the process could be streamlined.

“I would be quite happy if council didn’t have any authority to overturn staff decisions on trees,” he said.

In this instance, he said he would have preferred to save the blue spruce, but had to consider the risk of losing that vote versus removing the tree and getting more saplings to replace it.

Council’s decision doesn’t actually replace what’s lost, he added.

“Young trees do not afford the canopy cover and other environmental benefits such as stormwater protection ... you have to wait 30 years for that.”

The debate over the Colorado blue spruce also highlighted an urban/suburban divide on council. Councillors in the old city of Toronto are steadfast in their environmental protection principles, while suburban councillors allow for exceptions for constituents’ individual needs.

Coun. Stephen Holyday, who represents the suburban ward of Etobicoke Centre, is often vocal about tree removal applications.

He said even allowing community council the final decision on tree removals could simplify the process.

Local councillors have a “greater understanding of the look and feel of the area,” he said, noting issues like fences are decided at the community council level.

He also disagreed with Perks, saying there should be an opportunity for residents to appeal staff decisions.

Coun. Stephen Holyday said he thinks tree removals could be streamlined by giving community councils final say over what happens to them.

For him, the bylaw is actually too restrictive in some situations. “The very essence of these appeals often brings in other factors for consideration,” he said.

For example, if someone dreams of putting a pool in, but a tree sits in the middle of their backyard, why should that stop them? “Because of this policy, their dream of having a pool is over,” he said.

Asked about a councillor’s responsibility to the greater good, like the environmental benefits of trees, Holyday questioned whether the number of applications for removal that come to council even make much of a difference.

In the past year, 29 appeals of tree removal applications denied by city staff have come to community and city councils, according to a Star analysis of public agendas. Of those, community councils chose to allow removal in four cases and city council overturned only one of those to save the tree. In other instances, city council added replacement requirements.

The Colorado blue spruce wasn’t the only tree to have its day in court at that March session.
Immediately afterwards, from the North York Community Council: an application to remove a soaring Siberian elm tree near Wilson Avenue and the Allen Expressway.

This time, the tree avoided becoming pulp.