← Park Board Meeting May 4, 2026
welcome to telus conferencing to join the conference enter your access code at the tone please state your name followed by the number sign thank you
I'm scared, you know, you must love it.
Yeah, I'm here.
Okay, fantastic. We're going to get started in just a minute.
Okay, welcome. We will now convene the Park Board Committee meeting. May we have the roll call, please?
Commissioner Christensen is in the chair. Commissioner Bostrovansky.
Here I am online.
Commissioner Digby.
Present.
Commissioner Hare. Present. Commissioner Howard is not online or in the room. Commissioner Jensen.
Present.
And Commissioner Beardy. Present. You have quorum, Chair.
Thank you very much. Just a reminder, commissioners, that if you are attending virtually, to please leave your cameras on. If you are not, we're going to assume that you're absent from the meeting. So please leave your cameras on. I don't know if we can bring Commissioner Bastivansky on the screen, but I assume he has his camera on. Thank you.
It's on. I'm here.
Great, we see you. Thank you now. We got you up on the screen. I would like to acknowledge that our meeting is taking place on the traditional territory of the Musqueam, Squamish, and TTsleil-Waututh First Nations. We meet on this land respectfully and with honor to each other, the land, and the communities we serve. I would invite you to join with me in committing to acts of reconciliation in our deliberations and the decisions that we make. I do have a few procedural items I'd like to review before we move on. As our meetings are recorded and live web streamed, I would like to remind commissioners and presenters to speak clearly into their microphones. As well, there are cameras in the room, and at times they may capture those sitting in the gallery. Also, we have a code of conduct that we ask all present to follow to ensure we maintain a respectful workplace. We do have registered speakers this evening. Please note that speakers will be called up in the order that the request was received. Comments made must be related to the agenda item that commissioners will be voting on. The Park Board is committed to ensuring that anyone who participates in the board meetings are treated fairly and respectfully. The language we all use in these meetings should reflect respect for all. No form of discrimination is acceptable or will be tolerated. The creation of a safe and inclusive environment is everyone's responsibility. As chair, I will ask speakers to modify their speech if needed to ensure that respectful language is being used. Members of the board, you may also call a point of order if language used is not respectful or on topic.
Would somebody like to move a motion to reduce the speaking time from five minutes to three minutes?
Seeing none, we'll move on. So speakers tonight you'll have five minutes to speak.
Next up is the approval of the minutes for the Park Board Committee meeting held on April 27th, 2026. Are there any questions or comments on the minutes as distributed? Signaling a mover, Commissioner Jensen, and a seconder, Commissioner Digby. Thank you very much. I'll call a vote by a show of hands for the approval of the minutes. All in favour? That is carried unanimously. Thank you, Commissioners.
Do any Commissioners have announcements to note?
Announcements, anyone? Does the clerk have any correspondence of note? I do. The following is a summary of correspondence sent to commissioners related to the topics on your Park Board Committee meeting agenda. only reflects communications received between April 27th and May 4th 2026 up to 3 p.m. via the contact the park board commissioners web form and all communications received through these means have been sent to the commissioners so regarding the tree inspection policy we received one letter of opposition thank you thank you very much sorry excuse me
We have one staff report this evening, which is titled Tree Inspection Policy. This will be introduced by Director Gonda of Park Operations.
Is this on? Yeah, perfect. Thank you. I'm a candidate here, director of park operations, and I'm joined with Joe McLeod is our associate director of urban forestry. Before I get into the presentation, I just want to also recognize the multiple staff, not only at the park board, but engineering, RAFM, risk services and legal that were instrumental in tabling the policy that is meant to be citywide. So.
So the purpose of the presentation is to have the board receive the report and adopt the new tree inspection policy. The report summarizes key changes under the new tree inspection policy and steps to implementation. The policy establishes one comprehensive framework for all city and park trees with a consistent practical and safety focus.
We take on this important work on the unceded territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and TTsleil-Waututh First Nations and that the lands have been stewarded by them in memorial.
The city and parks are responsible for over 1 million trees.
Trees are a core public asset, requiring critical city obligation to public safety while supporting environmental stewardship. The policy embeds public confidence by improving tree inspection methods and by following best practices that are unified by having the policy adopted by both board and council. The Park Board and Council adopted the urban forest strategy back in 2025, establishing a long-term framework to guide how Vancouver's urban forest is managed, protected and expanded. The strategy set out five primary goals with the update to the tree inspection policy addressing goal number one, managing trees for health and public safety while supporting broader objectives related to protection, engagement, monitoring and growth of the urban forest. To support long-term implementation, Urban Forestry will develop urban forest management standards in 2027, translating policy direction into consistent operational practices across the organization.
The 1993 tree inspection policy scope included, as you can see in image A, which are park trees. These are individual trees located within city parks and green spaces. Depicted in image B are street trees. These are individual trees growing along streets and boulevards as defined by the street bylaw. And depicted in image C are forest area trees. These are clusters or multiple trees growing together in wooded thickets or forested areas rather than single trees standing alone.
The 2026 tree inspection policy update brings in the additional scope. And depicted in image D are civic trees. These are individual trees located on city-owned properties such as civic buildings or facilities. And as in that image illustrates, that's the cemetery. And this would take on properties such as City Hall campus as well. Depicted in image E are lane trees, what we would refer to as alley trees. These are individual trees growing in lanes that are easy for public city crews to access. And depicted in image F are inaccessible trees. These are trees that are difficult for city staff or public to access. This may occur because trees are behind fences or occupied land or blocked off with surrounding properties. You can just imagine unopened laneways that haven't been opened up, but there's clusters of trees or forests that are back behind properties that nobody has access to.
The tree inspection policy replaces the existing 1993 inspection policy established back in 1993. The establish is a single consistent policy for all city and park trees. Assigns implementation responsibility to one department, urban forestry. Clearly defines tree categories, inspection frequencies, and inspection methods. And this is risk-based, time-sensitive response requirements and aligns with recognized professional standards, including the ISA and TRAC.
This slide shows the scope of the tree inspection has expanded from 1993 to the 26 policy. The 93 policy focused on limited land base, primarily parks, streets, and park forest areas, with largely qualitative guidance and no defined response timelines.
You'll see an asterisk that's highlighting the forest area trees. The old policy only covered trees in forests that were on parklands. This did not include properties that would be under RAFM or other civic properties. So now the current policy would actually cover that as well. The new policy modernizes practices by introducing defined inspection cycles, updated ISA track risk methods, and a clear quantitative response times based on risk. From five business days to extreme risk to up to 10 years on low risk. Overall, the new policy shifts tree inspection from a general, reactive approach to a consistent, risk-based and accountable system.
A key feature of the policy is that it's grounded in the practical realities of managing trees across a very diverse city. It reflects operational realities including access and terrain, forest density and staffing and equipment capacity. applies different approaches based on location and use, level of public interaction and risk profile. It allows for operations to focus on effort where impacts to public safety are highest.
The policy manages risks with resources. It prioritizes proactive inspection in high-use areas, uses professional risk assessment, which I mentioned ISA and TRAC, to guide action, establishes clear response timelines based on risk severity, and recognizes that risk must be actively managed.
Post-policy adoption, the Urban Forest Department will complete ongoing inventory of tree and forest asset classes that is underway. Continue to upgrade the asset management software to support implementation. Update tree risk assessment processes and response times. Integrate blended service delivery to enhance service levels. And if adopted, the policy would be effective January 1, 2027.
So I'll close the presentation with a recommendation that is brought forward that the board receives this report and adopts a new tree inspection policy as outlined in this report and attached in Appendix D. And with that, I will return it to the chair for any questions. Thank you very much for this and your report. Commissioners, do you have any questions?
Commissioner Digby.
Yes, thank you for this excellent report, this update on the 1993 policy. So it's been 30, is this correct? It's been 36, 33 years since we've updated the official policy. This is the first time. So can you tell me about the track assessment tool? You said it's consistent, risk-based, and accountable, right? And that, you compared to the prescriptive, our previous one was more prescriptive. Can you explain the difference why a risk-based approach you feel is the appropriate one to use here? Thank you, Commissioner. That's a good question. That is one of the big differentiating factors with the old policy, which essentially dictated that by virtue of the language in it that one-seventh of the trees in the city were pruned each year, whereas this policy doesn't state that one-tenth is being pruned each year. It's stating that one-tenth will be inspected in detail each year, and then depending on which risk rating these trees land in, there will be a response time associated with that level of risk. So this allows you to do proactive inspection in high-risk areas. So would a high-risk area be one where there's more people, more traffic, or how do we define what a high-risk area is? So, yeah, the inspections take place, and depending on where a tree is sited, there are variable factors that contribute to risk level. Some of those include things like the frequency of occupation by people or property or infrastructure, the likelihood of the tree failing, also the consequence of that failure. If it were to hit a human, that obviously would have a much higher consequence, like a severe consequence, whereas if it simply hit a brick retaining wall, there may not be much consequence. So it looks at a multitude of factors that contribute to a level of risk outcome that then dictates what kind of response is necessary. Okay, so that's the risk-based approach. And can you tell me about worker safety? How does this new policy take a different approach to worker safety? Is it more consistent with WorkSafe BC, or how do you describe that for the staff that actually does this work?
Where this policy, I mean, there's a policy piece of this, which is for public safety. There are components for staff that have the required training. And so we've also implemented the fact that ISA and TRAC is a component of staff. And so prior to any work that they undertake, the assessment is very important on how to, one, to how to complete the task at hand, whether it's by aerial lifts or by climbing. So those components were integral in part of what we built into what the staff training component was. This policy really is more directed at, like, making sure that the public are safe and the trees are inspected and then they're managed and addressed depending on the risk factors as well. and just to add to uh what joe uh associate director joe mcleod added is that occupancy is a huge component uh the risk piece of it so when you have high density or more use of space whether it's arterial roads or our main bike routes or major walking trails they they do land at a higher risk and those are higher risk profile areas that we definitely have to have more eyes on so hence why we have the the old policy was one-seventh of the trees were inspected The new policy will have every site still inspected every 10 years, but on top of that, we will have the level 2 done every 10 years as well. So within 10 years, you will have every tree in the city of Vancouver that falls into our inventory inspected with a level 2 assessment as well. Excellent. Commissioner Jensen.
Thank you. In the newspaper today, it said that this... recommendation is due to the park board that, quote, can't keep up with new demands related to maintaining the city's 150,000 street trees and 38,000 park trees. Is that the rationale for this change, or is this more to keep in line with policy?
Well, one is just the policy piece of it. The policy, 93 policy, did not bring into scope all the trees that we have in the city of Vancouver. So there was a large component missing in the policy, and so that needed to be addressed, whether it was on civic lands or on city lands or park lands, even though... Urban forestry is responsible for street trees, which is actually on engineering right-of-ways. It definitely needs to be amended. There was a big gap within the policy of 93 to what we are tabling as a policy moving forward. So that was a primary rationale that we needed to bring into scope, things that were missing.
Okay. Is there anything financially that this board could do to ensure that trees are assessed every seven years rather than every ten years?
So tonight we are tabling the policy and this is really around public safety. And as I mentioned in the presentation and I believe it's tabled in the report as well, that early next year we will be bringing forward the tree management guidelines. And the tree management guidelines will reflect how we maintain... our trees and this is that's where the conversations around like the frequency so right now this is a 10-year policy the 10-year policy will still enhance the urban forest it will be able to for us to maintain the trees within this policy scope But if there is a reflection based on what we propose and table in the guidelines piece, we will definitely look at that and table what options there are, whether the recommendations are still to be on 10 years, if there's thoughts about going to a 9, 8, 7, or even longer the other way. Those are things that we can discuss. This policy right now currently is being tabled with no additional funding requirements, but definitely our team will be tabling the management guidelines to come forward for you and also for council as well.
Wonderful. Thank you.
Commissioner Herr. Sorry, one second. Hold on. There you go.
Thank you for bringing this forward. I'm just wondering what other technologies have you guys looked at to save our trees, also reduce costs, and maybe staffing around the maintenance of trees? What have you guys been, because I know there's several proposals I get contacted by so many different types of people that have different types of technologies or things that they can do. to save our trees. So what are you guys doing? Who are you entertaining? That's what I want to know. And I think the public would want to know this as well.
If I may, just for clarification, when you ask who, sorry, who we are entertaining?
Thank you so much. Many kind of companies or... Like, besides what we already have in place, what are we doing to move forward? Because we are a little outdated, and you're the expert, so I'm asking you.
No, thank you for the question. And so there's a few things that we've already undertaken and implemented. And one was the updating of our tree management software. The system we had in the past was just really just data. We've gone to GIS technology. We can pull out individual trees, which will then help us per this policy piece, especially level two inspections. help us prioritize where the maintenance needs to be to be be going instead of just uh doing one seventh and just doing simple pruning methods so we can isolate trees trees that need to be attended to that could be everything to do with watering trees to planting trees etc As part of the work of this policy, we also did have a consultant look at other municipalities as well. So this wasn't just an internal review. We looked at municipalities such as Surrey and Calgary and others to see what best practices they're implementing as well. So we've done a lot of work. There's still more to be done. As I mentioned, there's still upgrades to the urban forest management system. There's still the inventory work that we're going to be holding in many of the other locations. So that work will continue. The ISA and TRAC qualifications were huge as well because, you know, TRAC was not a requirement, and now TRAC is a mandatory requirement for all of our staff or as a crew leads to be having as well, so there's better assessments by staff that can be proactive in looking for defects, disease, and others, whereas before it was just simply maintenance. But there's certain parameters we put in, and we have also introduced a blended service model. it primarily before two years ago it was all in-house we just didn't have the capacity and so now with blended service models we have several contractors are helping support the maintenance of our trees including stump grinding watering and pruning of trees as well
Okay. And then I guess through the chair to the staff, if I've got, if I have an emergency motion to look at a certain technology to help save the trees that we have locally here as well that you guys can look at. And look, I don't want to overstep your role here because I do respect everything you do. Plus, I do respect the commissioners here. Can I possibly, either I could do an emergency motion today or I could suggest something for next...
Yeah, okay, why don't, we're out of time, so I would just suggest maybe we can, you could either add it as an amendment to this recommendation, or you can also bring it at a future meeting if you'd like.
I will do an amendment. Okay, we'll do that at the end after the speakers. Thank you so much. Just turn your mic up. Any other commissioners have questions?
Second round, anyone? Okay. Seeing no further questions, thank you so much for your presentation. Thank you. And we will be moving on to speakers.
So we do have eight registered speakers for this item. I'll be calling speakers up to the podium in the order that they were registered. When you come up, could you please state your name, who you're presenting, and very importantly, your position on the matter, just if you support or are opposed to the motion, is helpful for our record keeping. You'll have five minutes to speak. Their time will be up on the screen. Unfortunately, we do have several speakers, so I'll be having to cut you off after five minutes. And you'll have a chance commissioners have a chance to ask clarification questions if that's needed So we'll be starting with our first speaker Michael Cadence You
My name is Michael Robert Kaditz. I'm representing Stanley Park Preservation Society opposed to the motion. We strongly urge you to reject the proposed policy as written for the following two reasons. The first reason is the policy contravenes WorkSafe BC guidelines by mistakenly prescribing track as the assessment methodology in forested areas. The Wildlife Dangerous Tree Assessors course is the methodology prescribed by WorkSafeBC for municipal parks with native trees and where there are wildfire prevention activities. The Stanley Park Forest is a municipal park and recreation area containing native tree species. Wildfire prevention has been cited as one of the major purposes of the ongoing risk mitigation project. The WorkSafeBC guidelines to Part 26 of the BC Occupational Health and Safety Regulations state, and I'll quote, for greater certainty, WorkSafeBC considers the following to involve harvesting trees and to therefore be forestry operations. Falling trees in connection with forest firefighting or fire prevention activities. Part 26 continues to say, quote, in the context of forest harvesting and silviculture, parks and recreation, and wildland fire safety operations, only a person who has completed the wildlife dangerous tree assessors course can complete a risk assessment and make recommendations for managing dangerous trees. The hazard criteria and tree assessment procedures taught in the course can be reliably and defensively used to inform land managers where to implement mitigation strategies that will promote visitor safety while preserving trees of significance. The majority of assessment procedures recommended in this training are applicable to BC parks and recreation sites and trails. They can also be applied to native tree species found in municipal parks or other wooded areas such as golf courses and ski hills. These worker safety modules are applied to tree assessments in work sites in recognition of employer responsibilities to manage tree hazards under Part 26. The second reason you should reject the policy is the proposed policy errantly treats each track level as a standalone method of inspection, assigning distinct levels to distinct categories of tree populations at distinct time periods. however track should be correctly understood as a three-tier filtering system used to drill down on dangerous trees in a single population during a single time period the correct understanding of the procedure for forested areas would be to perform an initial level one visual assessment to identify suspect trees immediately not 10 years later or three years later, immediately followed by a level two basic individual inspection of suspect trees. And if doubt remained, a level three advanced inspection would be performed. The track manual, which I have here, clearly states... Quote, a constraint of limited visual inspections is that some conditions may not be visible from a one-sided inspection of a tree. Also, a level one risk assessment may not be adequate to provide risk mitigation options. You might use the level one assessment to determine which trees require further inspection at the basic or advanced levels. The track manual also states... An assessment of a population of trees may use a level one assessment as a filtering mechanism to determine which trees or subsets of the population will require a level two assessment. In some cases where a population of trees is being assessed, the priority may be to first locate any extreme risk trees and have them singled out for immediate mitigation. Finally, it is incoherent to define the, quote, complete scope for forest area trees as a level one visual inspection only as this proposed policy does in that it completely omits direction for what to do when trees are found to be suspect during a level one visual inspection. The implication is that wide swathes of trees will be prematurely removed based on limited level one inspections only and this would be a final death knell for the remaining native forests in Stanley Park. For all of these reasons, any new tree inspection policy should require certified assessors following the wildlife dangers tree assessors course in forested areas. Where track is prescribed, first, a level one visual inspection should be performed to identify suspect trees to be immediately followed by an individual level two and possibly level three inspection to determine which particular suspect trees, no more and no less, require mitigation.
Do any commissioners have questions? Commissioner Herr has a question for you.
Yeah, Angela.
Hi, how are you? Wow, thank you for that. So you feel with the presentation and what we're proposing and our staff and directors are proposing right now, it might affect Stanley Park, and how do you say so?
The way I expect it to affect Stanley Park is what they're doing is they're codifying the past into the future and they're saying we can go in and survey a large population of trees and determine by a mere visual inspection from afar whether or not the trees are dangerous and so what this leaves open is the possibility that on a level one visual inspection assessors, whoever they are, Blackwell, whoever, will say, we deem 5,000 trees on a level one visual inspection to be dangerous. The policy does not require us to do a level two. The policy only requires the visual inspection. Therefore, We deem 5,000 trees on the Lovers Walk or Tatlow Trail to be dangerous. The policy says we can do this on a level one visual.
So what I want you to do is, and you seem like an expert here, to define what does level one mean? What does level two mean? You're saying a lot of technical things, but there's people here who are very novice. They don't know what you're talking about.
It's in the report. I didn't want to waste my time going over it again, but very briefly, to respect your question, a level one is a visual inspection of a large population of trees that's done from a drive-by or a walk-by. There's no close-up inspection of any tree. They can only see what they can see from a distance. What is supposed to happen is that is a filtering process where suspect trees are identified. So trees that have what appear to be defects from a distance are then recorded and then subject to a close-up.
I'm sorry to cut you off. I'm just going to direct Commissioner Herr to page five of the report, level one, two, and three.
I know I don't have it in front of me, but this is a public meeting, and there's other people that have not written or read everything, and I want him to explain it to... I would like him publicly. It's a public report. And unfortunately, we have a lot of speakers to get to. But he's got actually 46 seconds, and you just ate into probably over 60 seconds of his time. Commissioner Herr, thank you. No, but that's not constitutional. You're actually taking his rights away as well.
Okay. Thank you very much for speaking. As you're right, it's in the report. We can reference that. Thank you for your expertise tonight.
One second. Hold on. Sorry.
Okay, then. If we could just have commissioners please be respectful of each other. Thank you. We're going to move on to our next speaker, Norm Oberson. Norm, come on up. If you can just state your name, here presenting your position on the matter. It'll be five minutes.
Good evening. I'm Norm Overson for Trees of Vancouver Society. I'll just tell you right now, a level one inspection is we stand here, we look at the trees, and what you see is what you got. Okay? Level two is we walk up to the trees, we walk around the trees, we feel the trees. and we find out what we've got. A level three inspection, aerial inspection, which by the way is being deleted according to the new policy. You never brought that up on the board. That's where we climb into the tree or we take a bucket under the tree and we do a detailed inspection of the tree. Now this presentation is full of misinformation and a lot of information that you should know and it's not included. That said, I'll begin my speak now. I don't support the proposal for the tree inspection policy, obviously. The proposed policy fundamentally weakens the existing tree inspection policy to facilitate the contracting out of... tree service pruning to private sector companies, including large American tree service companies with unfair cost advantages. So what this new policy is, is it's all about contracting out for cost efficiencies. That's what the policy is all about. It's not about the health of trees. It's not about the urban forest canopy. It's about cost efficiencies. And the way they're going to do that, the proposed policy will replace our current high-quality qualitative approach. with a cost-efficient, low-quality, quantitative approach. So we're going to prepare batches of street trees, and we're going to put those out in the market for tender to low-cost private sector companies who compete against high-cost government unionized public service parks workers. That's what it's all about. Now, what's going to happen as a result of this switch, proposed policy switch to the quantitative approach, is the tree pruning costs are going to go lower. They're going to go a lot lower. But the risk of death, personal injury, and property damage is going to go higher because the qualitative approach is a high-quality approach. It costs more. But you get better results downstream in terms of public welfare and safety. And if that's not enough, the proposed policy changes... and eliminates the level three aerial detailed inspection. So under the new policy, the guys on the street, the parks workers, they'll no longer be inspecting while they're pruning. That's gonna be gone because the new policy being what they say is proactive. requires a block of trees to be risk-assessed clean so it can be delivered to tender to the market as clean, risk-assessed. And that way the city will minimize its liability, its exposure, because it's done its due diligence, it's assessed. Level one, which is the lowest level of assessment, it's only assessing half the tree, by the way, from the street. It doesn't assess the half the tree on the homeowner's side, and that's the half that's going to be threatening the homeowner. So it should be a basic, and it's not. They're doing a level because it's cheap.
So this demonstrates that management's disregard for welfare and the safety of our citizens by using this policy. Now, what we need is a cost-effective approach, not a cost-efficient approach. Forget cost efficiencies and look for something that's effective. The WHTAC manual, the Tree Risk Manual, is... It should be used and not TRAC. With TRAC, you're on the wrong track. With WHTAC, you have a manual that's designed for the field, for operating. It's got cards. TRAC is designed, it was originally designed for a classroom. It's an educational tool. It doesn't have cards. You need the cards. The field crews need the cards to communicate. And using WHT is two or three times or four or five times faster because I've used it for 20 or 30 years in addition to track. I mean, I do hundreds of these track assessments per year. And I can tell you it's much more effective and much more efficient than using track. Unfortunately, TRAC's been adopted for the municipalities because it's been required for tree removals. And so it became a very big, widespread qualification for that purpose.
Sorry, your time is up. Any clarification questions from commissioners?
Sinan, thank you very much for coming to speak tonight. You're welcome. Our next speaker is Catherine Kaditz.
I'm Catherine Kaditz. and I represent myself tonight, and I request that the proposed tree risk policy be either rejected or subject to amendment for the following reasons.
Track is not the appropriate assessment protocol for forested areas of native trees. Rather, provincial guidelines specify wildlife danger tree assessment course, also known as WHTAC.
The proposed plan is quantitative rather than qualitative. For the sake of blanket assessments, dangerous trees will be overlooked, while safe trees will likely be removed. The quantitative in the proposed approach lends itself to more outsourcing. which historically has favored American companies, such as Save a Tree, rather than in-house labor. This is no time to transfer profits to the United States. The plan is not slated to take effect until January, 2027, which is after the new park board is seated. The new commissioners will have ample time to review and amend this policy. It is not right to impose this plan on a future park board. So I request that the proposed tree risk policy be either rejected or subject to amendment for the reasons I stated. And I also find it very interesting that the software upgrades, the upgrade management is called UFO.
I thought that was very funny as well. Commissioner Herr, she has a question. Catherine, Catherine, come back, come back. Commissioner Herr has a question.
Thank you for coming today. I'm just out of curiosity, and I respect your knowledge as well. How do you feel today's presentation and what we're going to be putting forth perhaps, if people vote for this, might affect Stanley Park as a whole? Like, how do you find it changing? What will happen to the tree canopy or the trees in general?
The tree canopy has already been damaged, and specifically two areas. Up near Prospect Point, when in the early part of 2024, the Prospect Point was logged, and there were... it looks to me like roads were built in that area. And with the removal of the trees, it opened up the area so that remaining trees could be a hazard in relation to wind damage. And there's a lot of wind up at that point. Also, the Chickadee Trail was greatly harmed. because when the trees were removed in the Chickadee Trail, you could go up in the park on a day when it was like 30 degrees out on the beach, and the Chickadee Trail would be like 19 degrees. That air conditioning is gone. That level of heat in the soil and at the forest floor now is a great risk. because it's dried, and the microbiome has been shot, is gone. It is becoming an unhealthy area.
Basically dying. It's dying. The biome's dying.
Well, I'm not sure if it's dying. It's struggling to get back. And left to its own devices, it probably will grow back, but we can't... intercept.
I got it. Thank you.
Our next speaker is Anita Hanson.
Hello, can you hear me good? Yeah, I'm Anita. And I'm obviously also opposed to this this new policy. And I was thinking, how could I present that? And the way I would like everyone to think about, let's say you have a person who has a hard time speaking up for themselves. Obviously, trees, some people can't hear them. You have a person who has a hard time speaking up for themselves. They go to the doctor because they have a cough. The doctor examined them from across the room by looking at them, saying, you look a bit pale. You might have lung cancer. Let's take your lung out. That's really what the analogy to a level one for the trees. You just eyeball and you make an assumption and an assessment. Let's say that person then have a hard time speaking up for themselves. Go to a surgeon. He arranged for the surgery. You go to VGH and they do the surgery. Later on, what if that person was a loved one of yours and you find out what happened? What would you want to do? Sue the doctor, right? But because this is a gross malpractice, it's negligence. Same thing, a level one would be gross malpractice, negligence, and grounds for a lawsuit. So in this case, though... And this medical thing actually, things like that have happened. But not only will the doctor that did the wrong assessment or no assessment from across the room by just eyeballing the patient get sued, the surgeon who also followed along without doing a proper assessment can get sued, and the hospital who made that happen and anyone involved. So aside from that, I think we all have to remember trees are alive. Why are we all here? And I don't mean this room. Why did you come? As a soul. Okay, we cannot harm the mother, the mother earth, unnecessarily. There will be a price to pay, not just for the children to come, but as a sole burden for anyone who facilitates unnecessary destruction of the Mother Earth. There will be a sole burden. Okay? And secondary, your question about the park, we find that we have asked many times to get the list of all the trees in Stanley Park that were cut. to see if they were assessed, and they were not. They were exactly just eyeballed. And I feel personally that the city is trying to make that a policy that it's okay just to glance at a tree and then take it down with no respect for the tree and for the Mother Earth. At least, even if you don't like nature, you're scared of nature, you think it's dangerous everywhere, at least have some respect. for nature. Because without it, we wouldn't be here. And the air in Vancouver would not be as fresh if it wasn't for the trees. Go to any other city. You can barely not breathe. Toronto is full of concrete. You come here, and it's so fresh and healing. Why? Because of the trees. They do a lot more than people give them credit for. So to just chop them down without a proper assessment is disrespectful. And it shows a deep disconnect to Mother Nature. And I'm for, too, that if a tree is dangerous, of course you don't want to fall on the head of people, but it needs to be assessed first. Just like we want to be assessed properly before we have something cut off our body. It is the same. And if you've forgotten who you are and why you came, I invite you to go sit under a tree and get your spirit back in your body and know why you're here. You didn't come to facilitate unnecessary destruction, right? That's not why any one of us came here. Maybe you got contaminated along the way. This is all about money or fame or a name, but that's not really why your spirit and your soul came here for. You've forgotten. If you are like that, you've forgotten who you were. So that's all I have to say. Anyone? Questions? Yeah.
Questions, commissioners? Signe, thank you very much. I'm so sorry for my cough today. Our next speaker is Mary Etty. Mary, come on up.
Hi. I'm Mary Etty, and I'm opposed to this policy as well. And I really, really respect and appreciate all the speakers who came before me and want to support everything that they said. From what I've heard is that there was a time, you know, years ago, I've been here a long time, when there were a couple of crews of four each of, I think, park rangers who kind of went around and looked at everything all the time. I remember seeing them because I grew up here. And I'm wondering if it would be more effective to have for them if they could get paid. I don't know if they were already tree assessors, but if they could be paid. paid and that be made part of their job, you know, to be tree assessors, then, you know, they're driving around all the time. They probably can do all the trails in the park and the roadways at least weekly, maybe even daily, if there's eight of them, like there used to be. And then, you know... dangerous trees can be assessed. They can do level one at least and maybe even more levels, I don't know, or else the other people can do level two and three, I don't know. But in any case, I don't see why it should even be only every few years. Why not, like, when there's a dangerous tree, like, let's deal with it right away so it doesn't fall on people's heads. And that could just be part of, that should be, I think, the main part of the ranger's job, really, isn't it? Isn't the ranger about protecting people in the park? Anyway, just my wild thoughts is probably something someone else could say about it and knows more than me. Yeah.
Any questions for our speaker?
Thank you very much for coming to speak tonight. Our next speaker is Lisa Penny.
Lisa is going to be by phone. Sorry. Is Lisa online? Okay. Can I give Lisa a second here?
Lisa, are you there? Yes. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Can we just, do you want me to turn off the audio mic? Just a sec. Perfect. Lisa, you'll have five minutes to state your name, who you're representing, your position on the matter. Please go ahead. Thank you. Hello, my name is Lisa Penny.
I'm speaking for myself. I oppose this new tree inspection policy as it weakens the current policy more or less, eliminating level two and three track inspection. The most important part of an urban forest strategy is increasing the canopy size while at the same time maintaining public safety, but this policy will likely reduce the canopy further. To me, this looks like a thinly veiled attempt to justify more logging in Stanley Park as you have added a new category, forest area trees, and maybe even in Champlain Heights too, as that's mentioned in the report. The urban forest strategy is a target of 30% citywide canopy cover by 2050. which is not much of an increase over a long period at all. And how are you going to manage this goal if you keep cutting down Vancouver's street and park trees? From your tree inspection policy report, the city includes many densely forested areas, mostly in parks, e.g. Stanley Park, but also in other areas historically or currently managed by REFM or engineering, e.g. Champlain Heights. Staff believe that these forested areas of the city in parks and elsewhere would benefit from a... proactive inspection regime targeting areas that are accessed and used by the public that language is already leading to cutting the new policy will require those areas to be inspected by level one visual assessment every three years again not level two or three and the wildlife dangerous tree assessment should be used in forested areas not track as michael pointed out and your tree inspection policy treats each level as a standalone method of inspection when it is a tree tier inspect system. If a tree looks possibly dangerous, it could be cut down after an only level one track inspection. This is not acceptable. Here you are listening to staff instead of to Vancouverites or even yourselves. Using the word proactive inspection regime sounds like staff are urging you to look for problems instead of maintaining these forest areas as forests.
Sorry. Your tree inspection policy is all about risk and there's little about protecting trees. I've kept a list of countless small to medium-sized street trees that were either cut down for developers or because of small issues. Most of them didn't need to come down or could have been pruned. I understand that larger issues must be managed as some of Vancouver's deciduous street trees are very large and a potential huge risk to the public if not inspected properly, but to level three track, not just one. But your past decisions like Stanley Park, et cetera, have almost always been on the side of cutting trees down instead of protecting them. I hope that you can change as of now and start looking at this a bit differently. We need these trees to keep Vancouver cool, but instead they are disappearing. Thank you.
Thank you, Lisa. Do any commissioners have questions?
I see none. Thank you very much for calling in tonight, Lisa. Thank you. Our next speaker in person is Alex Cordero. Alex, can we just get the podium mic turned back on? Thanks.
Hi. I've never spoken in a meeting like this before. I'm a longtime Vancouver resident since 1979. I would love to speak about the trees. I would love to speak about the trees, I'm sorry. And as an ex-Canadian PGA pro, I've actually spent a lot of time under trees and injured trees. And I would love to speak about trees and the difficulty of assessing the injured trees. And I would love to, but I actually came here as a member of the tennis community at Kitts Beach and Queenie. I grew up as a... a young tennis player and i apologize i think um i'm out of line and i do apologize this this public consultation is um is is uh we would like to seek this for a public consultation when i signed up i've never done this so i didn't know that this was for tree cutting or trees inspection um and you had a report that you you're implementing a pilot project for for tennis.
I'm really sorry to cut you off. I know. We can only speak on the topic. No, no, I understand.
But if there was a way that we could ask to put something like this in the agenda so that the public tennis players can have public engagement, because there's no engagement for... Why don't we take this offline and we can chat after the committee meeting, just after this item, we can chat about that if you'd like.
That's okay. No problem. I'm sorry, we've got to stick to the topic at hand. Yeah, yeah, you're welcome to talk. You've got 3.40 left. Go ahead.
Okay, thank you. So I ran a golf course for over a decade, and assessing trees and damaged trees and the potential for hazards for the golfers actually was a major concern. So when I would work with my superintendent and we would get the report from the arborist, it was very difficult to... to gauge the damage to the trees. And unfortunately, I see how heated this meeting is. And just as a person that's been in this field for a long time, trees will get injured and damaged. And unfortunately, that decision is a hard decision. Somebody that's had to make that decision, it's not easy. And whatever steps there are, there will be problems.
So having that risk assessment of is it really a danger to the public is very important. So I understand from the people that want the trees preserved, I just hope that that resolution, that compromise can be found because this is unfortunately, When it comes to public safety, I understand the park board's decision and whatever decision can be made. It's tricky because trees sometimes look healthy, but inside there's actually a lot of problems that the general public may not see. And arborists are expensive, so outsourcing them might be a way for the park board to be able to maintain expenses and costs. So with that, it would be very interesting to see the numbers for the outsourcing Because it's very important for the city to assess the trees. They may look healthy, but upon further inspection, it's very important to know the health of the trees. I've hit many trees with a golf ball, and I've actually almost been hit by a tree, falling branches. and stuff so yeah it is very important that the park board um assess the trees properly so that there's no harm to the public that that may happen even if the tree does look healthy so that's my input on that great thank you very much and welcome to our your first meeting here we hope you come back again uh do any commissioners have clarification questions
Yeah, if you don't want to stay to the meeting, you can also email us. Commissioner Jensen just wanted to note that to you as well. If you don't want to stay for the meeting, you can also send us an email. Yeah, we'll get you info. We'll move on to our next speaker, John Irwin. Come on up, John. I'm sure you know the procedure here.
Yes, I do. Thank you. My name is John Irwin. I'm speaking for myself, not representing anyone else. I guess what interests me about this policy is the inclusion of the laneway trees and the trees that are isolated and the trees that people don't notice. That got me a bit excited. I sent you some photos. There's only about three of them. They're laneways. Dave Demers, former commissioner arborist, brilliant gardener, he lived behind those trees. And that's a route in and out of my neighbourhood. But it also, those trees hold a lot of birds, insects. I've seen raccoons in them. I had more pictures. I thought I could do pictures, but I was wrong. And so what I have is the trees that are actually in our easement by where we live, and it keeps our building cool. So I think it's very important to put these in as the policy is doing. I went on a Jane's walk with a colleague over the weekend and we looked at the stumps and my take on it as someone who studied ecology and earned a PhD in that field is that we're dealing with climate change with a lot of these issues, the looper moth in the forest here and the street trees. I'd say the only thing I'd like to caution is, are there zones in the city where we already have trees where we could inspect a little more rigorously? That would be maybe one thing to think about. Yeah, and I too looked at the UFO and thought about making a joke, but someone's beat me to that punch. So, yes, and it's important to remember that the street trees as well really reduce the urban heat island effect. So on this walk, we're on one intersection, had a couple of trees taken down. Justifiably, I think you could see the rot in the core, right? But so I think we need to figure a way to... get those trees back in. If someone on the board can ask staff about whether you can, you know, as reading online, because I knew nothing about this. I'm just, I'll be honest with you. You know, it just came to me. Can you core down into the stump? and get it to rot faster so the stump removal is less expensive and we can get new trees in sooner. Another policy idea I would like to float is I as a resident put bags on our street trees and look after them. I'd be willing to donate a tree to replace the tree that got lost due to one of our contractors. So I don't know if that's a program that could be followed. I think I had something else to say, but I don't want to take too much of your time today. Yeah, 20 temperature records were broken in BC yesterday, so we clearly know that we're on stage two water restrictions. You know, so but, you know, one tension with the policy is, I was looking at the trees behind where Dave used to live, Dave Demers, former park board commissioner, and I was having a hard time figuring out, is that tree in the private property or is it in the lane? So I think it'd be good to know that so that we'd know, okay, we can call 311 and have the city come and look at it. versus it being our responsibility or the property owner's responsibility. Anyway, thanks for your time. Good luck with this. Some improvements, some challenges, but that's always the case. Thank you. Take care.
Thanks so much. Do any commissioners have clarification questions?
Thank you so much.
Yeah, he's just dropping off the contact info. He'll be back in just a second. So that does bring us to the end of our speakers. Would somebody like to move the recommendation as presented by staff? I see Commissioner Digby. Can we have a seconder, please?
Commissioner Basio-Vansky, online. Thank you for seconding that. We'll now discuss the recommendation. If commissioners have any comments, this would be the time. Please queue in.
You can also do amendments at this time if you'd like.
Commissioner Digby. One second, sorry. There you go.
Thank you. So, well, we've heard a lot from speakers today, and we've heard from the staff about their recommended approach to changing the tree risk policy. You know, the good news is that tree canopy is actually increasing in Vancouver. In 2013, it was down around 21%, and by 2022, it went up to 25% of the city is covered. And we are accelerating the project to increase the tree canopy to 30%, which is actually a monumental effort. And it requires a great deal of commitment by the city at all levels to get up towards 30%. And I think this is really on the right track to getting us towards there. I think, you know, some speakers were a bit mistaken there. And I just want to make sure the public is very clear that WorkSafe BC clearly authorizes the use of track, assessment in urban areas and at urban-rural interface. This is well-known. It's published. It's public. People who talk about use of the Wildlife Dangerous Tree Assessors course assessments, that is for rural forestry operations where you... which are not places where you get 20 million visitors a year as we do in Stanley Park. Those are places where on a busy July day, you might get 100 people walking down a trail. We have over 50,000 people a day in Stanley Park. And our busy streets in Vancouver see tens of thousands of people a day. WorkSafe BC clearly authorizes the use of track. And I don't want anyone to be mistaken about that. I think that somehow the city is not implementing the correctly selected assessment methodology here. I realize some people feel very uncomfortable when you move from a prescriptive approach of tree management to a risk-based approach. Prescriptive, you know, it sounds great that, oh, every tree gets examined once every seven years. But what we actually need and all the... Management strategies are moving towards risk-based assessment now, and that is what staff is proposing for us today. And after 33 years, I'm pleased to see a clarification and enhancement of the plan. I realize we're moving from 7-year inspections to 10-year inspections, but the 7-year policy has not been working out. We have not been able to fund that. It's constantly been cut back by city operations budgets. We are going to strive to maintain and get committed to this 10-year cycle and make sure that in 10 years' time we're going to have a much safer and stronger city. So I'm going to support the motion. Thank you.
Before we move on to another Commissioner for Common, I just wanted to ask a question to staff. Just something that came up from the speakers that I was hoping that could be answered. Just about this concept that there's this, that a level one assessment might happen and then, you know, to a whole block of trees and then we would cut down a lot of the trees without further assessment. Is that something that could happen or can you address how that kind of level one inspection works?
Thanks. Level one inspection is, it isn't necessarily an iterative thing in such that you can make a decision on the outcome of a tree based solely on a level one. And that applies especially when there's a situation where the defects are very clear. If the tree is stone dead and there's bark sloughing off of it, there's no second question. There's no need for a level two or a level three In some cases, if there's questionable traits in that tree, we may go to a level two. Otherwise, the tree may be marked as moderate. If it's moderate, it means there's no need to necessarily take an imminent action. And we will reassess that tree the following year using a level one assessment. If that tree appears to be degrading or getting less healthy over time, then it may warrant mitigative action whether it be pruning or removal, but Yeah, it's a it's it's a tool that's used to suit different types of trees and different types of conditions of trees Thank you Any commissioners want to make comments before we call a vote or amendments be the time
Okay, I'll just make a quick comment. I wanted to flag one part of this that I did like, and I think former Commissioner John Irwin mentioned this, is the addition of the laneway trees, and then also clarifying a little bit more about trees on city property that I think were not included in the previous policy. I think it's nice that we're bringing them all under a single policy like this so that it can be more comprehensive. I think is a great move so there's less ambiguity in the inspections and when they're happening. You know, the fact that the policy is from 93 and someone said 33 years, I didn't realize it's been that long. But yes, this is probably a well overdue update and I feel like I've been reassured from staff that, you know, they're taking a cautious approach in terms of, you know, doing these assessments and not necessarily just immediately cutting a tree down. but following up and doing this on a risk-based process, which I think is the correct way that we do this in an urban setting. So we have some commissioners who also want to make comments. Commissioner Jensen.
Thank you. I just want to say I'll be supporting this as well. And with that, I'm looking forward to the subsequent report that will come to us and the subsequent budget that will come to us in November. I too am not pleased with 10-year checks, but I also understand the financial repercussions of having an urban forest. When we look at adding up to 10,000 trees, that adds an operating cost of up to $650,000 a year. So when we look at adding trees to our city, the operating costs rise as well, and the operating costs are exactly what we're looking at today. This is not a cheap endeavour. This is an endeavour that takes a lot of work, a lot of resources, and I understand our staff is dedicated to this. Furthermore, I would like to again see more funding and more staffing. brought into the park board so that we can do the work ourselves instead of contracting out. So again, I'm looking forward to these subsequent reports, looking forward to an opportunity to increase funding in upcoming years so that the proper work can continue to be done that values these trees and values the residents that live and breathe and gather underneath them as well. I'll be supporting.
And Commissioner Herr. Thank you for the report, and I completely understand the work that you guys are doing. I'm not going to dismiss the work the staff does, the directors do. However, my concern always is with our parks that we hold dear to our hearts. I've been a big advocate for Stanley Park. And when we change things this drastically and we're able to just look at something and just remove it, again, I'm going to go back to Stanley Park, Stanley Park, Stanley Park. How are we protecting this beautiful forest that's within downtown Vancouver? And we're protecting the people that walk within it. and enjoy it every day. And more so the forest itself, of course. So I cannot be supporting this. And it's mostly because, as you've seen in the past, we've had one company and there was no independent consultation when it comes to actually assessing the trees. And that means hiring an independent arborist to make sure Stanley Park is protected. And so I will not be supporting this because of these... These small things that impact Vancouver every day, I can't be supporting this. And it's not that I don't care about the work that you guys are doing because I know how hard you guys work. But I'm very concerned about the little beauty that we have left within the city of Vancouver that sets us apart from a lot of big urban centers, including Toronto, New York, or other places that don't have any green spaces. And I'm going to protect the green spaces that exist here in the city of Vancouver. Thank you very much.
Seeing no further comments, I'll call a vote by a show of hands. All in favor? I see Commissioner Verdi, Commissioner Christensen, Commissioner Digby, Commissioner Jensen and Commissioner Bastiwanski. All opposed? I see Commissioner Hare. That is carried. Thank you, Commissioners.
As there is no...
Further business. The meeting is now adjourned. We're going to take a 15-minute recess. We'll return at 8.05. Thank you for the regular board meeting.
Thank you.
Commissioners, we're having a discussion about something that will happen later in the meeting. We have other business to attend to. Well, I'm in the same situation, Commissioner Herr.
Thank you, Madam Clerk. Welcome, everyone. We will now reconvene. We will now convene the regular park board meeting for May the 4th, 2026. Is Commissioner Bastiwanski there? Very good. May we have the roll call, please, Madam Clerk?
Commissioner Digby is in the chair. Commissioner Baskervansky.
Present. Commissioner Christensen.
Present.
Commissioner Heer. Present. Commissioner Howard is not online or in the room. Commissioner Jensen.
And Commissioner Verney.
U of Quorum chair.
Thank you. We begin tonight's meeting by acknowledging that we are on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory of the Musqueam, Squamish, and TTsleil-Waututh First Nations. At the Park Board, we know that by using the word unceded, we are recognizing that June 15th this year will mark 180 years that the Crown's obligation to negotiate treaties with the First Peoples remains unfulfilled. So I want to call again for political courage from provincial and federal leaders to bring treaty negotiations to completion and from the public, from the public to be ready to support those agreements when they're finally agreed on. Commissioners know that in this land acknowledgement, we read at the start of every meeting, we strive to honour this land and those who have stewarded it since time immemorial, namely the Musqueam, Squamish and TTsleil-Waututh nations.
Let me just conclude by saying the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation is committed to supporting truth and reconciliation and to use this opportunity to amplify local First Nation voices and culture through our work in the community. For our first order of business this evening, we need a motion for the board to go into meetings prior to the next regular board meeting, which are closed to the public, pursuant to section 165.2 sub 1 of the Vancouver Charter to discuss matters related to the paragraphs outlined in the agenda. I see Commissioner Jensen's moving that motion. Is there a seconder? Commissioner Christensen, all in favour? Please raise your hand. I see unanimous. Motion is carried. Thank you. Next up is approval for the minutes of the regular board meeting, April 27, 2026. Those minutes have been circulated. Any comments from commissioners? Seeing none, we'll take a mover, Commissioner Jensen, and a seconder, Commissioner Christensen, and vote by show of hands. Please raise your hands. Motion is carried. We'll move to the chair's report. This report covers events attended by park board commissioners since the last meeting, which was only last week. But in my park board role as liaison, I attended meetings of the Vancouver City Planning Commission.
I also attended, met with the executive, some executive members of Dunbar and Karesdale community centers as they met with the mayor's chief of staff and he explained why they were prioritized for the mayor's capital plan and that was an interesting discussion. They were surprised to say the least. Commissioner Jensen attended the Dragon Boat BC Burnwater Spring Sprint, where they welcomed 85 teams to the water in the largest spring sprint to date there on Falls Creek. And since the last meeting, Commissioner Jensen visited English Bay Beach. And did he go in? No lifeguards yet, but there will be. Thank you, Park Board. I met with a gentleman named Charlie Cusetto, who we are here to honor today. He's the legendary local, national, and international futsal and FIFA soccer volunteer. Was a longtime Park Board employee. He used to be one of our recreation facility managers, retiring in 2011, and I see many members of his family are visiting with us today because he's coming up later on the agenda. It was very nice to meet Charlie, a true gentleman. Commissioner Jensen attended the BCRPA 2026 Symposium. This year's theme was Healthier Together. Thank you for that, and thank you, Commissioner Hare, for your notice that you were unwell and not able to attend this year. And then I welcomed runners at the start of the BMO 8-kilometer race in Stanley Park. And it was loads of fun. And the herons have all hatched. The eggs have hatched. And if you listen, you can hear the hatchling squabbling now. And that's just in the last three days that they've picked it up. So thank you, commissioners, for your work in the community. Does the clerk have any correspondence of note?
The following is a summary of correspondence sent to commissioners related to the topics on the regular board meeting agenda this evening. The report reflects communications received between April 27th and May 4th, 2026, up until 3 p.m. via the Contact the Park Board Commissioners web form. All communications sent through these means have been shared with commissioners. Related to the motion titled Urgent Review of Beach Parking Fees, Affordability, and Accessibility at Jericho, Locarno, and Spanish Bay, There was one letter of support and the motion titled reducing parking fees at Spanish banks for 2026 Received the same letter of support. So it's just one letter over those two motions.
Thank you Thank you Our next item is the report of the park board committee from earlier this evening need a motion to adopt that committee's recommendations I see Commissioner Christensen moving and Commissioner Jensen seconding now call a vote by show of hands all in favor Please raise your hand of the committee report. It's unanimous. Thank you commissioners Now ask for the general managers report presented by general manager Jackson Thank You chair evening commissioners
A new bus route on Stanley Park Drive was approved by the Park Board in September 2025 as a priority initiative in the Stanley Park Mobility Study and identified as a key action in TransLink's Burrard Peninsula Area Transport Plan. City Engineering and Park Board staff are working closely with... TransLink to implement the new route targeting service launch as early as 2027. The route would connect Waterfront Station and Stanley Park and operate on Stanley Park Drive. At the initial launch of service, TransLink plans to operate the seasonal service on weekends only in spring and summer, with potential to expand service as funding is approved in future TransLink investment plans. The new accessible bus stops and minor roadworks are funded by TransLink and the Park Board. Project referrals have been sent by the Park Board to the local nations in coordination with the Archaeological Referral and the Stanley Park Intergovernmental Working Group. Public engagement is planned to begin in May 2026 and feedback will inform the route design, bus stop locations and TransLink's service plan. Outreach includes an online survey open May 11th to the 31st led by TransLink and a pop-up event in the park on May 23rd. And meetings with park business operators, city advisory committees and other interest holders led by Park Board. Feedback will inform the new bus route design, bus stop locations, and transit service plan.
The Park Board is advancing the Park Trails Accessibility Pilot to improve access and overall visitor experience for people with disabilities. Through this pilot, visitors to Stanley Park, Queen Elizabeth Park, John Henry Park, and New Brighton Park will be able to access high-quality, interactive accessibility maps to support trip planning and real-time navigation. The Park Board has partnered with Access Now to conduct specialized accessibility audits leveraging both advanced technology and auditors with lived disability experience. This approach will generate reliable, detailed data on trail conditions, terrain, and amenities, which will be integrated into a global digital mapping platform to enhance accessibility and usability ahead of the peak summer season. On-site audits will occur from May 4th to 8th, providing critical insights into existing barriers and informing both the pilot and future planning and operations. Following data collection, staff will collaborate with Destination Vancouver on a coordinated public launch with pilot completion anticipated at the end of June.
A few things at Council this week. On May 5th, three items of interest to the Board. First is Title 2026, Financing Growth Update, Bill 16, Compliance Update to Density Bonus Provisions and Inclusionary Zoning. Also, the City of Vancouver Commemoration Framework will be received by Council. And Finally, on the 5th, quarterly capital budget adjustments May 2026 will be received by Council. On May 6th, three reports, also one titled Supporting Community Stewardship for Eco-Corridors and Neighborhood Greenspaces is a motion to be considered. Keeping the session rolling is a further motion to look to allocate $500,000 of renewal to the Hastings Park Skateboard Facility. And finally, on May 6th, a motion titled Proactively Protecting Residents from Dangerous Heat
which will seek approved funding to ensure sufficient resources are available to support vital cooling infrastructure throughout the summer months of 2026. And finally, on May 7th, Council is to receive a report titled Audit of Community Grants at the Auditor General meeting on Thursday. Finally, one memo shared with the Board since the last time we met. On May 4th, that was earlier today, Spanish Bank's speech paid parking update was shared with the Board. And that is my GM's report for this evening, and I'm open to questions should there be any.
Thank you. On the city council agenda, there was the city of Vancouver commemoration framework that's coming to council. Is this also looking back at a motion from 2022 that was supposed to be a joint city park board commemoration framework? Is this going to also come to park board as a joint framework?
I can take that one away and come back to the board on this one. My understanding is this is just the City of Vancouver's framework, but we would look to align our framework as close as we can to make the processes seamless for our users.
Okay, thank you.
And, General Manager, I have a question. The council motion to put $500,000 into the skate park in Hastings Park, have we assessed, I believe that's consistent with our skateboard policy, but has Park Board, I know Hastings Park's not our jurisdiction, but has anyone, does Park Board have any statement about whether that's consistent with our own skateboard policy?
What I can't say is staff were supportive of providing some of those cost estimates to the mover of this motion. We, of course, as always, look to our board for our board's priorities and how you deliver and spend your capital funding. I can't, we didn't do an analysis on whether this motion to council was aligned with policy as, again, we don't take any direction from council.
Very good. Thank you. I think it is consistent, but... We'll look into that. Any other comments? Seeing none, then I will thank the General Manager for his report. We have three motions on notice this evening. Let's get to the real business here. The first is titled Honouring Charlie Cusetto Beaconsfield Park Community Legacy. That motion was moved by Commissioner Hare. Thank you, Commissioner Hare. Is there a seconder for that motion? Commissioner Verdi. I see. Commissioner Hare, would you please introduce your motion, which is now on the screen, and people can see it there.
Here you go. Thank you. Good evening, Chair, Commissioners, and staff. Tonight, I am proud to move this motion honoring Charlie Cozzetto and his extraordinary legacy at Beaconsfield Park and across Vancouver Parks and Recreation System. When I first began working on the Beaconsfield Park motion, Charlie never once boasted about his own accomplishments. He never asked for recognition. He never led with his titles. his awards, or his incredible amount of work he had done for this city. In fact, what moved me most was hearing the speech written by his brother, Joe, at Charlie's Celebration of Life.
It reminded me that Charlie's legacy is not only about soccer, recreation, or one park. It's about a lifetime of quiet service, humility, and commitment to community. Charlie gave more than four decades of professional service to Vancouver's parks and recreation systems and more than 50 years of volunteering service to our community. That is a lifetime of collaboration. He worked across so many Vancouver neighbourhoods and community centres, including Hastings, Renfrew, Mount Pleasant, Fraser Creek, Kensington, Point Grey, Britannia and Jericho. If anyone understood the heart of Vancouver's neighbourhoods, it was Charlie. But what stands out more is how humble he has always been. Charlie did not do this work for attention. He did not do it for praise. He showed up year after year for families, athletes, volunteers, parks, recreation, and community. This motion is about recognizing Charlie during his lifetime while he can feel the appreciation of the community he helped build. It is also about reminding future generations that our parks, fields, and community spaces did not just appear on their own. It was shaped by people like Charlie and by so many others like him. who gave selflessly to her home called Vancouver. Beaconsfield Park is more than a park project. It is about community legacy. Charlie helped advance that legacy, and I believe it is fitting that Parkport formally acknowledge his contribution and ask staff to report back with options to commemorate His name with the Beaconsfield Park project, including the possible naming of the new turf field and his honour, consistent with park board naming policies. At a time when Charlie is facing significant health challenges, I believe it is both timely and appropriate that we act with gratitude, respect and urgency. I respectfully ask my colleagues to second and support this motion. And thank you so much. And thank you to the staff and directors and our fellow commissioners, because we do selflessly sit here, even though we sometimes disagree, to help and better our homes, our home that we call Vancouver. We're all here selflessly, and we do want a better Vancouver tomorrow, just like Charlie does. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner here, for a very warm acknowledgement of the contributions of Charlie Guzzetto, which is deeply appreciated by the Park Board and by the city and by the national and international futsal and soccer field communities. Do commissioners have any questions they would like to ask the commissioner? I see some questions from Commissioner Jensen we'll start with.
Thank you. Thank you so much for the introduction to the motion. Just wanting to know if staff have raised any sort of concerns with the motion that commissioners should be aware of in advance of considering this motion.
Thank you so much. None that I'm aware of. I did consult with the GM as well, and he was well aware of my intentions. But again, I want to emphasize, Charlie and his family never, ever pressured me or came to me and said, this needs to be. He's the most humble man. At the end of the day, he worked for the park board. And as far as I know, but through the chair, we can always ask our GM as well if there's any concerns otherwise. We don't need to. Okay, thank you.
Okay, yeah. Thank you.
You say in the motion consistent with park board naming policies, can you tell me which policy you're referencing?
Our naming, right now we're also... The community itself has already contributed money towards Beaconsfield. And with that, I am considering it also leaving it up to the GM plus staff to work with the families to come up with a naming policy. It doesn't have to be the field itself. When I spoke to the GM, GM Jackson himself, he said that he'll work with the community and the family as well to find out what would be appropriate.
Okay, so you're not referencing a specific park board policy?
No, I'm not. Okay. Is that an issue with you?
I'm just raising the fact that our commemoration policy is currently underway and in work. And there's a draft one that's come out, and I just wanted to make sure if it was consistent with that or not.
I'm not, but I'm introducing a motion to actually celebrate someone who's almost dying. And the numbers, I don't know if it's days or weeks.
I'm just flagging that you say consistent with the naming process.
I know, but it's days or weeks. I don't know when he might pass away, but he's alive right now, and I would like to celebrate his life and the work that he's done. which also represents the work that everybody else does with the city of Vancouver, amongst other staff members. That's great, thanks. Thank you.
Thank you, commissioners. Any other questions for the mover? No, then thank you, Commissioner Hare, for presenting this so ably and competently. And now we'll move to comments from the commissioners. comments to the motion Commissioner Verde please go ahead
I think Charlie has been an advocate for soccer and providing access to soccer both locally and internationally. And he's been a part of this organization. So I think this motion is very fitting. And it's coming in a timely manner when we're moving to put a turf field at Beaconsfield. So I will be supporting this to honor the contributions of Charlie and the great field that's coming along. So I will be supporting this motion.
Thank you so much. Interestingly enough on the... The weekend I was considering our work coming up here this Monday and went to a park and was actually sitting and reading, looking at our motions here. And the park that I was in, I kind of was thinking, like, have we done this before? Answering kind of your question of, you know, how do we rightfully acknowledge people? And then I realized I was in a park called Emory Barnes Park. And I just did some Googling and I was like... while we're in a park, a park board park named after a person. So this is not something that is new to the park board. And then researching that this was a famous footballer themselves. And so for me, it was just like, well, I can close the page on this. This is an easy recommendation. I, for one, think it's imperative for elected bodies like ourselves to acknowledge the contributions that Vancouverites make to our community. The selfless sacrifice that so many do to make our city beautiful, to make it more liveable, to make it more friendly, to make children or provide children the opportunities that they might not otherwise have. So again, this is like such an easy motion for me to approve. And the only thing that's outstanding is, you know, I would like, you know, hopefully that this passes tonight. And I would like that potentially that mayor and city could look at providing a proclamation in the upcoming days or weeks that would coincide with what we're doing today. I think that, you know, when we look at the accomplishments you know, what we're going to do today hopefully is a small step forward. But, you know, just like in football, there is no such thing as a small step. Every step is towards a common goal. And so tonight I will happily approve this, and hopefully we can take another step forward with the city and mayor after this. So thank you.
Thanks. I'll start by saying that I will be supporting this. I think the language in the motion, I think, addresses some of my concerns in terms of how it will be approached. I do just want to take a moment to note that we do have a commemoration guidelines that are coming, and I think that those are well overdue and should be, hopefully we can expedite those. Really, my concern is that when you look at the names of parks around Our city, I don't think that they are necessarily representative of the diversity in the city that we do have. I think they're, if you look at sort of the ethnicity and gender of the names across our parks, tend to skew that are not representative of our city. And I think that we should be... you know, aiming to increase the diversity in the naming that we see to recognize people of underrepresented groups. So I would like to see our cremation framework moved up and that we can move to naming our parks.
in ways that are representative of the communities that we have. But I will be supporting this motion.
Of course I'm supporting this. I just wanted to... ask through the chair because Charlie's brother is here. I don't know, this might be unusual during park board procedures, but is it possible that Joe that's here can say a few words as well? I mean, again, he did not request this motion. It's on my own accord, but is this out of order or can he?
Suspend the rule through the chair.
can can we suspend the rules just for a moment um to have joe a few requests to suspend the rules to hear from joe guzzetto if joe could come forward um we do need to vote we do need to vote on to suspend the rules so just one moment joe so um all those in favor second is commissioner jensen all those in favor of suspending the rules to hear from uh charlie's brother joe guzzetto it's uh Commissioner Hare, Bastiavansky, Commissioner Jensen, Commissioner Reardy, Commissioner Digby, all those opposed, suspending the rules, all abstained. Commissioner Christensen is abstaining. Joe, you have the floor. Please.
Okay, I wasn't planning to speak.
And if you want to introduce us to your family, you'd be welcome to, but we only have five minutes.
Okay, my wife Frances, my son Francesco, my brother-in-law David, my daughter-in-law Bianca, my daughter Simona, and her husband Gianluca, my aunt Lil, my niece Tara, my sister Elvie, my cousin Anna, my cousin Anthony, Sandy Bannister, my cousin Christian, my good friend Piero, and Francesco. Okay. I'd just like to thank all of you, the park board commissioners, especially Angela, for when she had mentioned this to me, I was kind of taken aback. I go, that's fantastic. Again, we didn't ask for anything. I know Charity didn't, for sure. But I'm just grateful for this motion, basically. And I don't have to go into all the things Charlie did, but when he said he went to all those community centres, I'm being much 11 years younger than Charlie, I went to all those community centres with him. You know, so I was, or the parks or whatever, so that was nice. And I still live in Vancouver, so that's a nice thing. But again, thank you very much. And hopefully going forward, and yeah, open to suggestions on possible things to do there. Thank you.
Thank you very much for speaking to the Park Board tonight in honour of your brother. uh commissioners i have would just like to um conclude with some thoughts uh before we vote on this um i did meet with uh charlie yesterday he is super shy guy and very appreciative of this honor um but he said first so many other volunteers in the system are are equally deserving he insisted Although when he tells the stories of being a volunteer at the international futsal level and the international FIFA, he's traveled to 49 different countries as a volunteer doing the necessary behind the work scenes. to keep those organizations running. And now I do need to say that regarding the field name at Beaconsfield, he did make it very clear to me, and perhaps staff could take notice of this, that he did think the name should be retained as Beaconsfield for that particular field. Although he did... said that there are certainly other ways to recognize you there. And he thought he would maybe be more comfortable with a different way of being recognized. And staff is invited by this motion to consider those recognition measures at Beaconsfield Park. So in honor of...
Charlie and family who's here and family and friends that are watching. Charlie, we know you will enjoy every minute of the FIFA World Cup, which is on our doorstep in a matter of weeks, and we hope you enjoy it as much as we do. And with that, I'll call the commissioners to vote. All in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. I see unanimous support from your elected park board, and we thank the commissioner for bringing the motion. It passes.
It's not necessarily a point of order, just a recess, just to take a quick... Yeah, we will take a two-minute recess while we switch gears to the next motions.
Excellent.
We will resume the park board meeting of May the 4th, 2026. Commissioner Baskovansky, you're still with us. Thank you.
to see you. Our next motion is titled urgent review of beach parking fees affordability and accessibility at Jericho, Locarno and Spanish banks. That motion was moved by Commissioner Hare. Commissioner Hare would you like to read your motion to the table?
Point of order. Yes, what is your, no, we have a point of order. Yes, Commissioner Christensen, what is your point of order?
My point of order is that this motion is out of order based on section 10. This is, we previously voted on this during the fees and charges.
We're listening, Commissioner here, you'll have to listen to the point of order.
Based on section 10 of our procedure bylaws, This motion is out of order because we've already voted on this during the fees and charges.
Thank you. This motion is likely out of order because the commissioner who's raising it voted against the substance of this motion on October 20th and the parking motion. But I'm going to ask the commissioner to read not the whereas clauses but the resolution clauses. Is the motion out of order or not? It may be out of order.
Can you rule if it's out of order or not, please?
Thank you. I run the meeting, and I'm going to listen to the motion, and then I'm going to rule on it.
I think you have to rule on it.
No, I chair this meeting, not you, Commissioner, so your microphone is off. Thank you. And Commissioner Hare can now read her motion.
Commissioner Hare is now allowed to read. Commissioner Hare had a point. Commissioner Hare had another point of order. Yes, what was it, Commissioner Hare?
Chair? I would like a chance to actually introduce my motion before there's a point of order.
Sorry, Chair, you just need to rule on that point of order or rule that it is not a point of order before we proceed. Thank you.
I am not accepting the point of order from Commissioner Christensen because I want to hear the motion before I rule on it.
Commissioner Hare has a point of order.
Thank you, Commissioner Digby and Chair Digby, for letting me introduce my motion, which I think is really important to the Vancouverites that live here and pay taxes and have to have...
Okay, keep it to the point. Your point of order is that you would like to...
I would like to actually introduce my motion...
Okay, thank you. We've heard that. Is there another point of order? Do you have a different subject, Commissioner Christensen? Please go ahead.
I'd like to challenge the ruling of the chair on my previous point of order.
Commissioner Jensen has ruled as a second challenge of the chair. So I would like to speak. No, you can't speak quite yet. There's a challenge to the chair, which means that we need a two-thirds majority to rule in favour of the chair. That means four out of six votes in favour in order that Commissioner Hare should be able to read her motion. All those in favour...
So are you saying that you guys are actually challenging a motion that I'm bringing forward and not able to actually introduce it?
You're not listening, Commissioner Herr. The ruling of the chair was that we would hear you read your motion. That's being challenged. And now we need four votes to support the chair in allowing you to hear this. So everyone who wants to hear the motion and support read out and to support...
No, the challenge to the chair can be brought at any time and it just needs to be moved and seconded.
So this vote right now, just to be clear, if I vote yes, that means I could read out and actually bring forth my motion?
No, it'll be ruled out of order. I'm giving you the chance, though, to read your motion and Commissioner Christensen doesn't want you to read your motion.
So if I want to make sure I'm able to read my motion, do I vote yes or no?
You vote yes.
And then is this normal procedure or is this something out of order that she's doing? Because I would like to do a point of order. This is normal procedure. I would like to do a point of order. No, that's not a point of order.
So I suggest you hold your socks because this is in your favor if you vote in favor of this. So all those in favor of sustaining the chair, please raise your hands. I see Commissioner Digby, Commissioner Verdi, Commissioner Hare. All those opposed to sustaining the chair, please raise your hands. I see Commissioner Basiwanski, Commissioner Jensen, and Commissioner Christensen. So the chair is not sustained on this. And unfortunately, Commissioner Hare, we won't be reading your motion because the substance of your motion, and this is my ruling that your motion is in fact out of order, is that you voted against a very similar, in fact, the identical motion on October the 20th. I remember time and time again. No, no, without talking, you're not allowed to talk back to me. I remember time and time again voting against parking raises and parking. If you speak against me, you're going to get turned off.
At Jericho and Spanish Banks. Clerk, I'm going to have to ask you. And I find that very interesting that you guys are doing this.
Clerk, I'm going to have to ask you to turn off the commissioner's mic.
You guys are doing something that's very uncomfortable.
Commissioner Verdi, what is your point of order?
There was no chance given to anybody to speak, so how is someone raising a point of order when the motion hasn't even been introduced yet?
There is a procedural ruling that Commissioner Christensen has enforced, which is that she should not be allowed to read her motion tonight.
So I'm sorry, if commissioners don't understand what the rules are of this meeting, they can go back and study what they are. The ruling, as I was elaborating on, is that because you voted against the parking motion on October the 20th, and you also voted against the Spanish Bank-specific parking motion on June the... On June the 16th, it was where we approved the parking fees at Spanish Bank. So you voted against both of those. So under Section 10 of the bylaws, you're not allowed to move to reconsider the motion.
Correct. Correct.
Because that's what the rules are, Commissioner Hare. Okay, so we are moving on now.
commissioner I encourage you commissioner oh yeah don't commissioner I would encourage you and caution you at this table if you don't want to be thrown out of the meeting to mark okay okay all right we're gonna recess this meeting and commissioner here is going to cool down we're going to come back in five minutes and if the commissioner is cooled down we'll resume the meeting Thank you, the motion's recessed.
Welcome back, everyone. I will be assuming the chair to discuss and have...
I don't have Commissioner Vasco-Vanciari.
Point of privilege.
Commissioner Basky-Vansky, we are still in recess because I was told that you were not, Commissioner Basky-Vansky was not present. We did not have quorum. Are we now ready to begin?
Yeah, point of privilege. Could I just get an understanding of what's happening in the room? The mics were off during some dialogue.
What I will let you know is that a discussion had occurred in regards to the chair's ruling, and now we are reconvening. The chair has surrendered their seat, so they will...
they may uh move a member's motion and i will now um provide an opportunity for the chair to present their motion and i'm ready for whatever happens here so here we go uh just got to bring up my screen here why isn't my screen uh i need to see thank you i apologize
There we are. So, Commissioner Digby, you are going to be bringing a motion forward. You may have a moment there, and I will open up your mic.
And at this point in time...
All right, so at this point in time, I'm going to do the same thing to you as was done to our fellow Commissioner here. I'm going to rule that this motion is out of order. We don't need to introduce it. It is publicly available on the website and available for all to read. You are unable to move this motion and for all the reasons identified before. And we are going to move on.
A point of order. Could you explain the reasons to the public about why this motion cannot be heard tonight? Given that I was opposed to this fee resolution, to this fee motion. Yes, you may. Thank you so much.
I will now read what is a lovely prepared statement so that I don't get anything incorrect. For all those following at home, this is what is being occurred. The chair is ruling that the submitted member's motion is not in order as a freestanding motion to revisit a matter previously decided by the board. The appropriate procedure is a motion to reconsider the board's November 24th, 2025 decision respecting the Spanish bank's parking fee. Under the procedure by-law and consistent with Robert's rules, a motion to reconsider must be moved by a member who voted on the prevailing side of the original decision and must be seconded. If the motion to reconsider is adopted by majority vote, the original November 24th motion is again before the board for consideration. The board may then debate, amend, adopt, or defeat that original motion. Based on the voting record, Commissioner Digby, having voted in favour, may move to reconsideration. Oh, sorry. Based upon the voting, I'm going to just get rid of that part because that's no longer relevant. Commissioner Digby having voted against the November 24th motion may not.
So would it be, could you elaborate on who voted, who else was opposed to the November 24th motion for these parking rates? Are you familiar that it was yourself, myself and Commissioner Bastiwanski?
That is correct.
Who could move such a motion? I could probably speculate, but I'm going to double check to make sure that we're...
It was Commissioner Christensen, Commissioner Hare, Commissioner Verdi, and Commissioner Howard, who voted in favor of these high parking rates. That is correct. No, you voted in favor of it, and it's in the minutes. And so did Commissioner Hare.
In fact, you were the... November 24th. The fees and charges.
You can point of order if you would like. Point of order. Okay, thank you. I'm going to turn your mic on. And your point of order is that...
Specifically against raising the fees at Spanish banks, I voted against that. Okay, thank you. Fees and charges are a broad topic, so they're not severed. So when we're talking about specifics... Point of order, that's incorrect.
According to the minutes of November 24th, Commissioner Beardy was the swing vote that drove it home.
So what we're going to say is that, again, we are, in regards to the comment, we are looking at fees and charges. The vote on November 24th. And that vote for fees and charges, the four commissioners that voted in favour were Commissioner Howard, Commissioner Hare, Commissioner Verity and Commissioner Christensen. That approved those fees and charges. They may move a motion at this point in time to reconsider that decision.
Thank you for that ruling and making it clear who was responsible for those outrageous fees at Spanish banks. Thank you.
Thank you. So at this point in time,
We are going to just actually, I'm going to give Commissioner Verdi a moment to revisit with staff. Oh, we're back. So is that clear, Commissioner Verdi, that we are discussing fees and charges?
It's being confirmed that I voted against raising the rates specifically at Spanish banks on that motion. Yes, that's the October motion. Fees and charges, yeah. Fees and charges was a blanket of a bunch of fees and charges together. So that specific motion should override anything because that's what we're talking about today.
The opportunity to reconsider is the fees and charges. So at this point in time... No, no, you're not listening to what I said.
You voted against the Spanish banks and you voted for fees and charges. Is that correct?
Yeah, fees and charges is fees and charges across the board, not specifically. So specifically, I voted against... Increasing the rates at Spanish banks.
We completely understand that you voted against Spanish banks parking on that motion and then for the fees and charges. Thank you. All right. So with that, the motion is out of order by Commissioner Digby. And at this point in time, no ruling needs to be made. And I will surrender the chair back to the chair. Thank you.
Thank you. We'll resume the Park Board meeting of May 4th, 2026. Does any commissioner have a notice of motion?
I see Commissioner Jensen. Please go ahead. Thank you. Submitted in writing, it is called recognition of Jim Clive and Howard Kelsey for their contributions to sport and community at Kitsilano Beach Park.
Thank you for your notice of motion. Any other notice member motions? No. Moving on to other business. Does anyone want to raise reconsideration of fees and charges at this point in time? This would be the place to do it.
Seeing none, we'll move on to inquiries. Do any commissioners have inquiries?
Seeing none, no further business. We'll adjourn the meeting. Thank you for your participation. And we will reconvene the in-camera meeting at this point to consider one more item. I see Commissioner Baskin-Bansky will restart momentarily as soon as we clear the room.