Park Tree Removal Oversight and Planting

Summary#

This City Council item responds to an earlier motion about protecting the process for tree removal at Ontario Place. It explains what rules apply to tree removal there, how heritage and environmental rules factor in, and what the Province has told the City about permits. Council also adopted an amendment (Malik, motion 1a), but the text of that amendment is not included in the supplied material. The broad goal appears to be to ensure any tree removal follows due diligence, heritage protection, and environmental review.

Key points:

• The Province says it will not seek City tree-removal permits on provincially owned lands at Ontario Place, but will follow City due-diligence, tree protection, and replacement standards.
• The Province will seek City permits for bylaw-protected trees on City-owned lands where it is doing site-servicing work under a licence with the City.
• Site servicing (utilities and related work) was expected to start in fall 2023 and would remove about 625 trees (per the September 2023 arborist report), mostly on provincial land; none on the West Island in this first phase.
• Future redevelopment (including the West Island and public realm) would require additional tree removals; estimates in supplied materials range from about 941 more trees (staff report) to about 1,500 total (Province’s letter) to about 1,156 total (Heritage Impact Assessment). Plans may change.
• The Province proposes planting about 2,900 new trees across the site (overall roughly 2:1 replacement; up to 6:1 for larger trees), with details to come at later planning stages.
• Ontario Place is a Provincial heritage property; Ministerial consent is required for removal or demolition of heritage attributes. City staff say, in their view, Ministerial approval should be obtained for the proposed tree removals because trees are part of the site’s cultural landscape.

What is unclear:

• The exact content of the adopted amendment (Malik motion 1a) is not provided in the supplied material.

What it means for you#

• Residents and park users:

  • You could see tree removal and construction activity for site servicing on the East Island and mainland (not the West Island in the first phase).
  • Over time, more trees could be removed as part of the broader redevelopment. The exact number and timing are not final.
  • The Province says about 2,900 new trees will be planted, with more native species and improved soil conditions, but detailed planting plans will come later.

• Property owners and businesses near Ontario Place:

  • Little direct change from this Council item itself. Most effects relate to how the Province proceeds with site servicing and redevelopment and how it coordinates with the City on City-owned lands.

• Heritage and environmental advocates:

  • Ontario Place’s trees are identified as part of its cultural heritage landscape. Staff point to the need for Ministerial consent for changes to heritage attributes and refer to Environmental Assessments that consider vegetation impacts.
  • The final Environmental Study Report for the “public realm” Environmental Assessment (Category C) was not yet posted at the time of the staff report.

• Developers/contractors working at Ontario Place:

  • On City-owned lands, bylaw-protected tree removals tied to site servicing require City permits and compliance with City standards.
  • On provincially owned lands, the Province will not apply for City permits but has said it will follow City-like due diligence, protection, and replacement practices, including certified arborists and timing restrictions for bird nesting.

• Indigenous communities:

  • The Province says it continues to engage Indigenous communities and seek guidance on repurposing removed trees and on future plantings.

Expenses#

No direct public cost is identified in the available material regarding Council receiving the reports.

• City staff note no financial impact from receiving the report.
• Administrative effort will continue for City review of permits on City lands and for planning reviews, but no estimate is provided.
• Costs of tree removal, site servicing, and replanting fall to the Province and its agents; no cost figures are provided here.
• No publicly available information on broader project costs is included in the supplied material.

Proponents' View#

• The item appears intended to clarify and protect the process for tree removal at Ontario Place by:
  • Setting out which trees are covered by City bylaws and where permits apply.
  • Recording the Province’s position that it will follow due diligence and City-like standards even when City permits are not required on provincial land.
  • Linking tree decisions to heritage obligations, including Ministerial consent where heritage attributes are affected.
  • Connecting tree actions to completed or in-progress Environmental Assessments that considered vegetation impacts.
• A possible argument for this approach is that it improves transparency and accountability during a large, complex redevelopment while keeping the City’s standards in place on City-owned lands.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is that the Province’s decision not to seek City permits on provincially owned lands limits formal municipal oversight of tree removals there, relying instead on the Province’s commitment to follow City-like standards.
• The number of trees to be removed is not consistent across sources (staff report, Heritage Impact Assessment, and the Province’s letter provide different totals). This may create uncertainty about the scale of loss and the adequacy of replacements.
• It is unclear in the supplied material whether the required Ministerial consent for changes affecting heritage attributes (including trees that form part of the cultural landscape) has been obtained.
• At the time of the staff report, the final Environmental Study Report for the “public realm” Environmental Assessment had not been posted, which may raise timing questions about proceeding with certain works.
• The exact directions adopted by Council in Malik’s amendment (motion 1a) are not available here, making it hard to assess any added safeguards or requirements Council may have set.