The Oak vs. The Development: Council Backs Project, Not the Tree

BY VALENTINA BARRERA

As North Vancouver council weighed whether to greenlight a major redevelopment, the conversation kept drifting back to the same sticking point: a mature oak tree slated for removal.

The project, planned for 1540 St. Georges Ave. and 215–235 East 16th St., advanced to second and third reading after a public hearing on Nov. 24. It calls for two buildings (one 12 storeys, the other six), and the removal of 25 trees across the site, including the oak.

City staff urged council to support the proposal, pointing to its alignment with housing and sustainability goals. The development would deliver 249 secured market rental units, along with 173 parking stalls, 404 bicycle spaces, shared amenities, green space and a mass-timber design.

Still, for many councillors and residents, those benefits were overshadowed by a lingering question: whether the oak could, somehow, be saved.

Alex Jamieson, a retired city planner with three decades of experience reviewing developments, said the project could be redesigned to save the oak and potentially another tree or two.

“There’s an oak tree there which actually can be saved and probably a couple others, but that’s probably the most beautiful one.”

Jamieson raised the concern at the developer information session, submitted sketches and letters, and tried to speak with the project architects.

“I’m not taking away housing to save some stupid tree, but what I am talking about here today is biodiversity and the fact that the new tree bylaw doesn’t seem to be effective.”

He said common excuses for failing to preserve trees include late-stage design conflicts, parking requirements and assumptions that redesign is impossible.

“I think there are architectural solutions. They’re not undoable. They can be done.”

He started an online petition to stop council, staff and applicants from removing some of the trees, specifically the oak. He argued that planting 78 saplings wouldn’t come close to replacing the lost history, culture and presence of the tree. He even offered his services and provided his own sketches for rebuilding without harming the trees.

Coun. Holly Back acknowledged the value of the oak but said she could not support changes at this stage.

“I can’t trade off the children’s playground for a tree, even though it’s an absolutely beautiful tree… unfortunately we’re going to lose a beautiful oak tree, but we will gain 78 new trees.”

The landscape plan confirms 78 replacement trees are proposed, including 12 larger plantings. Other councillors shared concerns, including Coun. Shervin Shahriari.

“I will be a voice for the oak tree tonight. I do believe… there could be some reconfiguration, some creativity that has not happened here to save the oak tree.”

He ultimately voted against advancing the bylaws because of the tree.

According to the city’s tree management plan, all 25 on-site trees must be removed due to excavation and building footprint conflicts. Replacement trees and new street trees form part of the landscape plan.

Lyndon Mulliner, a planner with the city, said the mature tree could not survive construction impacts or underground parking excavation, even though staff study both the trees and the design variables to try to save them.

From the developer’s side, Mackenzie Biggar, interim vice-president of development and sustainability at Adera, said the oak has grown beyond its natural shape.

“I would call it a risk, if that tree were to remain in place, through demolition, excavation, construction and then the maintenance, over time is very complex and difficult.”

She pointed to the impacts that conserving the tree would have on the application itself.

Council voted to give the related bylaws second and third reading, despite multiple councillors expressing disappointment over the oak’s removal and acknowledging the emotional and environmental significance of the tree.